Skip to main content

Full text of "Supernatural religion : an inquiry into the reality of divine revelation"

See other formats 










"ἧι 
at 
Ἶ 


᾿ 
rt 
Ws 
i 


ER ee 
Ra 
bee i fi # Hy "Ἢ 


epi 
ad. HEMI ANG 
ε 
hi 
ν᾽ 
is f ὦ 
ἌΝ 
Wee 
, 


i oy 


SEEGER 

MRP ΩΣ ᾿ 

RY CT I RAR ae 
ἽΝ Yh 


f 
uy 
ἢ ὦ 























PY 


CASE ag PALS 
asthe) 





is 

JAP ey Hi , 

Yi 1 ἐν Wits 

ἧ Ἢ; ett 
At) 


fy) 


PE 
Mo 
Wi, eters 

‘iy 


HE 


fi 

ΠΡ 
ΣΝ i 

ἡ i) 

Bi, oie 
"| ii es 
A J4t, 


HM Hi : a 
ἜΝ Hn, i aA a) ἈΝ Wh Hey 
NE RE BY ΡΝ Hi , ἌΝ ἢ ΠΗ, i 

OR RMR RE EDD UR a 
yp es j i; 





if ve 
νει 
ay) ἐν 


Ων 


"" 
ἌΝ 
᾿ ΜΝ 
Ἂν; ΡΝ Ss 
With Af J } A fi 
UN) Tihs 
Piles 


ἡ 
ey) 
MIIGTLSASS 
ΣΝ 
ΩΣ 


Ἢν i 
te 


rs 
ts 

iit 

if ae 


tis 
4 
ἐμ 
ne 


wih 


r 
ΟΝ 

i 
: 


tid 
Very. 


(Dts 
ὙΠ 


Re εν 
SSS 


τα: 
x 


Ἢ iy 


ἢ 
᾿ 








oa 
ἄπολις. 











Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2007 with funding from 
Microsoft Corporation 


https://archive.org/details/supernaturalreli02cassiala 


SUPERNATURAL RELIGION: 


AN INQUIRY 


INTO’ 


THE REALITY OF DIVINE 
REVELATION. 


IN TWO VOLUMES. 
VOL. II. 


FOURTH EDITION. 


LONDON: 


LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO., 
1874. 
(The Right of Translation is Reserved.} 


LONDON ! 
BRADBURY, AGNEW, & 00., PRINTERS, WHITEFRIARS. 


CONTENTS 


OF 


THE SECOND VOLUME 


PART ΤΕ 
(Continued.) 
CHAPTER V. 
PAGE 
THE CLEMENTINES . : ὃ ε : ᾿ ; ; ἡ τον © ΔΕ 
THE EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS : ; ; gt: ; : ΩΣ 
CHAPTER VI. 

BASILIDES : : ξ ; ξ : 5, : : A te BAL 
VALENTINUS. : : 3 Ἢ : : : 3 ᾿ : « 55 
CHAPTER VII. 

MARCION . : Α ; : - ; P : : : Oe TO 
CHAPTER VIII. 

TATIAN . ᾿ : : : ᾿ ; y ; ‘ : ; . 148 
DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH . : : : 4 : ? : >, oek6s 
CHAPTER IX. 

MELITO OF SARDIS : ς : : , : x : : . 1715 
CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS . : : : : : : : veer ΠῚ 
ATHENAGORAS . 3 Σ : : ‘ : : : : . 191 
EPISTLE OF VIENNE AND LYONS . : ‘ : 4 Ἶ a BOO 
CHAPTER X. 

PTOLEMZUS AND HERACLEON 2 : ‘< ᾿ Ξ ‘ : . 205 
CELSUS. ὃ . Α : , : : ; Υ ᾿ 5. 6 B27 
THE CANON OF MURATORI . ‘ : : : : : : ORY) 


RESULTS . i Ἐ “ ᾿ : : ζ Ξ ; τ 5,48 


vi CONTENTS. 


PAR? Ti. 
THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 


.--..ὁ-.-..-. 


CHAPTER I. 


THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE 


CHAPTER II. 


THE AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 


CHAPTER III. 


CONCLUSIONS 


PAGE 
. 251 


387 


. 477 


AN INQUIRY 


INTO THE 


REALITY OF DIVINE REVELATION. 





PART I. 


— 4 


CHAPTER V. 
THE CLEMENTINES—THE EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS. 


WE must now as briefly as possible examine the 
evidence furnished by the apocryphal religious romance 
generally known by the name of “The Clementines,” 
and assuming, falsely of course,’ to be the composition 
of the Roman Clement. ‘Ihe Clementines are composed 
of three principal works, the Homilies, Recognitions, and 
a so-called Epitome. The Homilies, again, are prefaced 
by a pretended epistle addressed by the Apostle Peter to 
James, and another from Clement. These Homilies were 
only known in an imperfect form till 1853, when Dressel? 
published a complete Greek text. Of the Recognitions we 

1 Baur, Dogmengesch., 1865, I. i. p. 155; Bunsen, Hippolytus, i. p. 431 ; 
Ewald, Gesch. ἃ. V. Isr., vii. p. 183; Guericke, H’buch Κι. G., i. p. 117, 
anm. 2; /Zilgenfeld, Der Kanon, p. 30, p. 204, anm.1; Die apost. Viter, 
p. 287; Kirchhofer, Quellensamml., p. 461, anm. 47; Lechler, Das 
apost. u. nachap. Zeit., p. 454, 500; Nicolas, Et. sur les Ey. Apocr 
1866, p. 87 ff.; Litschl, Entst. altk. Kirche, p. 204 f.; Cotelerius, Patr. 


Apost., i. p. 490, 606; Gallandi, Patr. Bibl., ii. Proleg., p. lv. 


? Clementis R. que feruntur Homiliz xx. nunc primum integre. Ed. 
A. R. M. Dressel. 


VOL. Il. B 


2 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


only possess a Latin translation by Rufinus (a.p. 402) 
Although there is much difference of opinion regarding 
the claims to priority of the Homilies and Recognitions, 
many critics assigning that place to the Homilies,’ whilst 
others assert the earlier origin of the Recognitions,” all 
are agreed that the one is merely a version of the other, 
the former being embodied almost word for word in the 
latter, whilst the Epitome is a blending of the other two, 
probably intended to purge them from heretical doctrine. 
These works, however, which are generally admitted to 
have emanated from the Ebionitic party of the early 
Church,? are supposed to be based upon older Petrine 
writings, such as the “Preaching of Peter” (Κήρυγμα 
Πέτρου), and the “ Travels of Peter” (Περίοδοι Ilérpov).* 


1. Credner, Beitriige, i. p. 280 f.; Ewald, Gesch. d. V. Isr., vii. p. 183, 
anm. 2; Engelhardt, Zeitschr. f. hist. Theol., 1852, i. p. 104 f.; Guericke, 
Wbuch K. G., i. p. 117, anm. 2 ; Reuss, Gesch. N. T., p. 254; Schwegler, 
Das nachap. Zeit., i. p. 481; Schliemann, Die Clement. Recog., 1843, p. 
68—72; Tischendorf, Wann wurden τι. 5. w., p. Vii., anm. 1; Uhlhorn, 
Die Homil. u. Recogn., p. 343 ff.; Dorner, Lehre yon d. Person Christi, 
1845, 1. p. 348, anm. 192; Liicke, Comment. Ev. Joh., i. p. 225, &e., ζο., Ke. 

2 Hilgenfeld, Die ap. Viiter, p. 288 f.; Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1869, p. 
353 ff.; Késtlin, Hallische Allg. Lit. Zeitung, 1849, No. 73—77; Nicolas, 
Etudes Crit. sur les Ey. Apocr., p. 77, note 2; Ritschi, Entst. altk. Kirche, 
p. 264, anm.1; cf. p. 451, anm. 1; Yhiersch, Die Kirche im ap. Zeit., p. 
341 f.; Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 62, p. 137, ἄο., &e., &e. 

3 Baur, Paulus, i. p. 381 f.; Unters. kan. Evy., p. 562; Credner, Bei- 
triige, i. p. 279 ff.; Hilgenfeld, Die ap. Vater, p. 288 ff.; Kirchhofer, 
Quellensamml., p. 461, anm. 47; Lechler, D. ap. u. nachap. Zeit., p. 500 ; 
Nicolas, Etudes sur les Ey. Ap., p. 87; Reuss, Hist. du Canon, 1863, p. 
63, note 1; Gesch, N. T., p. 253; Ritschl, Entst. altk. K., p. 204 f.; 
Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., i. p. 363 ff.; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 
251; Zeller, Die Apostelgeschichte, 1854, p. 53. 

* Baur, Unters. kan. Evy., p. 536 ff.; Bunsen, Bibelwerk, vii. p. 
560 ff. ; Credner, Beitrage, i. p. 331 f.; Gfrdrer, Alig. K. G., 1. p. 256 ff. ; 
Hilgenfeld, Das Markus Ey., p. 113 f.; Die ap. Viiter, p. 289 ff. ; Zeitschr. 
wiss. Theol., 1869, p. 361 ff. ; Késtlin, Der Ursprung synopt. Evv., p. 
395; Kayser, Rey. de Théol., 1851, p. 131; Mayerhoff, inl. petr. Schr. 
p. 314 ff.; Reuss, Gesch. N. T., p. 251 f.; Ritschi, Entst. altk. Kirche, p. 
264 ff.; Thiersch, Die Kirche im ap. Zeit., p. 340 ἢ; Volkmar, Der 
Ursprung, p. 62. - 


THE CLEMENTINES. 3 


It is not necessary for our purpose to go into any ana- 
lysis of the character of the Clementines. It will suffice 
to say that they almost entirely consist of discussions 
between the Apostle Peter and Simon the Magician 
regarding the identity of the true Mosaic and Christian 
religions. Peter follows the Magician from city to city 
for the purpose of exposing and refuting him, the one, 
in fact, representing Apostolic doctrine and the other 
heresy, and in the course of these discussions occur the 
very numerous quotations of sayings of Jesus and of 
Christian history which we have to examine, 

The Clementine Recognitions, as we have already 
remarked, are only known to us through the Latin 
translation of Rufinus; and from a comparison of the 
evangelical quotations occurring in that work with the 
same in the Homilies, it is evident that Rufinus has assi- 
milated them in the course of translation to the parallel 
passages of our Gospels. It is admitted, therefore, that 
no argument regarding the source of the quotations can 
rightly be based upon the Recognitions, and that work 
may, consequently, be. entirely set aside,’ and the 
Clementine Homilies alone need occupy our attention. 

We need scarcely remark that, unless the date at 
which these Homilies were composed can be ascertained, 
their value as testimony for the existence of our 
Synoptic Gospels is very small indeed. The difficulty of 
arriving at a correct conclusion regarding this point, 
great under almost any circumstances, is of course 
increased by the fact that the work is altogether apocry- 
phal, and most certainly not held by any one to have 


1 Credner, Beitriige, i. p. 280 ff.; Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., i. p. 
481 ff.; Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. Justins, p. 370 f.; Nicolas, Et. sur les Ey. 
Apocr.; p. 69, note 2; Zeller, Die Apostelgesch., p. 60; Scholten, Die Alt. 
Zeugnisse, p. 55f., anm. 10; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 251. 


B2 


5 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


been written by the person whose name it bears. There 
is in fact nothing but internal evidence by which to fix 
the date, and that internal evidence is of a character 
which admits of very wide extension down the course of 
time, although a sharp limit is set beyond which it 
cannot mount upwards. Of external evidence there is 
almost none, and what Jittle exists does not warrant an 
early date. Origen, it is true, mentions Περίοδοι 
Κλήμεντος, which, it is conjectured, may either be the 
same work as the ᾿Αναγνωρισμός, or Recognitions, trans- 
lated by Rufinus, or related to it, and Epiphanius and 
others refer to Περίοδοι Πέτρου ;2 but our Clementine 
Homilies are not mentioned by any writer before pseudo- 
Athanasius2 The work, therefore, can at the best afford 
no substantial testimony to the antiquity and apostolic 
origin of our Gospels. Hilgenfeld, following in the steps 
of Baur, arrives at the conclusion that the Homilies are 
directed against the Gnosticism of Marcion (and also, as 
we shall hereafter see, against the Apostle Paul), and he, 
therefore, necessarily assigns to them a date subsequent 
to A.D. 160. As Reuss, however, inquires: upon this 
ground, why should a still later date not be named, since 
even Tertullian wrote vehemently against the same 
Gnosis.* There can be little doubt that the author was 
a representative of Ebionitic Gnosticism, which had once 
been the purest form of primitive Christianity, but later, 
through its own development, though still more through 


1 Comment. in Genesin Philoc., 22. 

* Hilgenfeld considers Recog. iv.—vi., Hom. vii.—xi. a version of the 
Ξερίοδοι Ierpou’ Die ap. Vater, p. 291 ff.; Ritschl does not consider 
that this can be decidedly proved, Entst. Altk. Kirche, p. 204 f. ; so also 
Uhlhorn, Die Hom. u. Recog., p. 71 ff. 

3 Synops. Sacr. Script., sub finem. 

* Gesch. N. T., p. 254. é 


THE CLEMENTINES. 5 


the rapid growth around it of Paulinian doctrine, had 
assumed a position closely verging upon heresy. It is 
not necessary for us, however, to enter upon any 
exhaustive discussion of the date at which the Clemen- 
tines were written ; it is sufficient to show that there is 
no certain ground upon which a decision can be based, 
and that even an approximate conjecture can scarcely be 
reasonably advanced. Critics variously date the compo- 
sition of the original Recognitions: from about the middle 
of the second century to the end of the third, though 
the majority are agreed in placing them: at least in the 
latter century.’ They assign to the Homilies an origin 
at different dates within a period commencing about the 
middle of the second century, and extending to a cen- 
tury later.? 


1 a.p. 150, Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 163, cf. 93 f., 108 f.; Circa 
A.D. 140—150, Hilgenfeld, Die ap. Viiter, p. 297, anm. 11; Der Pascha- 
streit, p. 194. After a.D. 170, Maran., Divinit. D. N. J. C., lib. ii., cap. 
7, § 4, p. 250 ff. Beginning 3rd century, Reuss, Gesch. N. T., p. 254; 
Zeller, Die Apostolgesch., p. 64; Bleek, Beitriige, p. 277. Dorner, Lehre 
yon d. Person Christi, 1845, i. p. 348, anm. 192. Between A.p. 212—230, 
Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., 1. p. 481. Schliemann, Die Clementinen, 
1844, p. 326 f. Not before A.D. 216, Gallandi, Vet. Patr. Bibl., ii. Proleg., 
p.lv. Between A.D. 218—231, Dodwell, Dissert. vi. in Iven., ὃ xi. p. 443. 
End 3rd century, Credner, Beitriige, i. p. 281. 

2 Before middle 2nd century, Credner, Gesch. N. Τὶ Kan., p. 45; ef. 
Beitriige, i. p. 281. Middle 2nd century, Ritschl, Entst. altk. K., p. 264, 
451; ef. p. 65; Kern, Τὰν, Zeitschr. 1835, H. 2, p. 112; Gfrérer, Allg. 
K. G., i. p. 256; Tischendorf, Wann wurden τι. 5. w., p. 90; Léville, 
Essais de Crit. Religieuse, 1860, p. 35. Soon after middle 2nd century, 
Schliemann, Die Clementinen, p. 548 f.; A.D. 160, Lechler, Das ap. ἃ. 
nachap. Zeit., p. 461. A.D. 150—170, Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 55. 
A.D. 150—160, Renan, St. Paul, 1869, p. 303, note 8. Before a.p, 180, 
Kayser, Rey. de Théol., 1851, p. 155, A.D. 161—180, Hilgenfeld, Zeitschr. 
wiss. Theol., 1869, p. 353, anm. 1; cf. Die ap. Viiter, p. 301; Der Pascha- 
streit, p. 194. A.D. 175—180, Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 164; cf. 137, 
63. Second half 2nd century, Derner, Lehre Person Christi, i. p. 341, 
anm. 190. End of 2nd century, Baur, Dogmengesch., 1865, I. i. p. 155 ; 
Ewald, Gesch. ἃ. V. Israel, vii. p. 183; ef. 386, anm. 1; Jeuss, Gesch. 

N. T., p. 254; Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., i. p. 406; Kirchhofer, Quel- 


6 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


In the Homilies there are very numerous quotations of 
expressions of Jesus and of Gospel history, which are 
generally placed in the mouth of Peter, or introduced 
with such formule as: ““ The teacher said,” “Jesus said,” 
“He said,” “The prophet *said,” but in no case does the 
author name the source from which these sayings and 
quotations are derived. That he does, however, quote 
from a written source, and not from tradition, is clear 
from the use of such expressions as “in another place 
(ἄλλῃ zrov )* he has said,” which refer not to other locali- 
ties or circumstances, but another part of a written 
history.2 There are in the Clementine Homilies upwards 
of a hundred quotations of expressions of Jesus or refe- 
rences to his history, too many by far for us to examine 
in detail here, but, notwithstanding the number of these 
passages, so systematically do they vary more or less 
from the parallels in our canonical Gospels, that, as in 
the case of Justin, Apologists are obliged to have recourse 
to the elastic explanation, already worn so threadbare, 
of “ free quotation from memory” and “ blending of pass- 
ages ” to account for the remarkable phenomena presented. 
Tt must, however, be evident that the necessity for such 
an apology at all shows the absolute weakness of the 
evidence furnished by these quotations. De Wette says : 
“The quotations of evangelical works and histories in 
the pseudo-Clementine writings, from their free and 
unsatisfactory nature, permit only uncertain conclusions 
lensamml., p. 461, anm. 47; Liiche, Comment Ἐν. Joh. 1840, i. p. 225; 
Giesdler, Kirchengeschichte, Neander, Genet. Entw. Gnost. Systeme, p. 


370. Zimmermann, Lebensgesch. d. Kirche J. C. 2 Ausg., ii. p. 118. 

AD. 250, Gallandi, Vet. Pair. Bibl. Proleg., p. ly.; Mill, Proleg. N. T. 

Gr., §670. Fourth century, Lentz, Dogmengeschichte,i. p. 58. Their 

groundwork 2nd or 3rd century, Gueriche, H’buch K. G., p. 146. 

1 See several instances, Hom. xix. 2. # 
* Credner, Beitrage, i. p. 283. - 


- THE CLEMENTINES. 7 


as to their written source.”’ Critics have maintained 
very different and conflicting views regarding that source. 
Apologists, of course, assert’ that the quotations in the 
Homilies are taken from our Gospels only.? Others 
ascribe them to our Gospels, with a supplementary 
apocryphal work: the Gospel according to the Hebrews, 
or the Gospel according to Peter* Some, whilst 
admitting a subsidiary use of some of our Gospels, assert 
that the author of the Homilies employs, in preference, 
the Gospel according to Peter ;* whilst others, recognizing 
also the similarity of the phenomena presented by these 
quotations with those of Justin’s, conclude that the 
author does not quote our Gospels at all; but makes use 
of the Gospel according to Peter, or the Gospel according 
to the Hebrews.® Evidence permitting of such divergent 
conclusions manifestly cannot be of a decided character. 
We may affirm, however, that few of those who are 


1 Die Anfiithrungen evyangelischer Werke und Geschichten in den 
pseudo-clementinischen Schriften, ihrer Natur nach frei und ungenau, 
lassen nur unsichere auf ihre schriftliche Quelle zuriickschliessen. inl. 
Ν, Τὶ p. 116. 

2 Lechler, Das ap. u. nachap. Zeit., p. 458, anm.; Orelli, Selecta Patr. 
Eccles., cap. 1821, p. 22; Semisch, Denkw. ἃ. M. Just., p. 356 ff. ; 
Westcott, On the Canon, p. 251; Tischendorf, Wann wurden τι. s. w., p. 90. 

3 Bunsen, Bibelwerk, viii. p. 533; Franck, Die evang. Citate in ἃ. 
Clem. Hom., Stud. w. Geistlichkeit, 1847, 2, p. 144 ff.; Kirchhofer, 
Quellensamml., p. 461, δῆτα. 47, 48; Késtlin, Der Ursprung synopt. 
Evy., p. 372 f.; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 58; De Wette, Eink 
N. T., p. 115 ἢ; Weisse, Der evang. Gesch., i. Ὁ. 27,anm.***; Uhlhorn, 
Die Homilien u. Recog. ἃ. Clem. Rom., 1854, p. 119—137; Herzog’s 
Realencyclop., Art. Clementinen. 

4 Hilgenfeld, Die Eyv. Justin’s, p. 388; Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 
.62; Baur, Unters. kan. Evyy., p. 575 ff.; Zeller, Die Apostelgesch., p. 
59. 

5 Credner, Beitriige, i. p. 330 ff.; Neander, Genetische Entw. der yorn. 
Gnost. Syst., p. 418 ἢ; Nicolas, Et. sur les Evang. Apocr., p. 69 ff. ; 
Reuss, Gesch. N. T., p. 193; Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., p. 207. 

Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, Zeller, and others consider that the author uses 
_the same Gospel as Justin. See references in note 3, 


© 


8 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


willing to admit the use of our Synoptics by the author 
of the Homilies along with other sources, make that 
concession on the strength of the absolute isolated 
evidence of the Homilies themselves, but they are gene- 
rally moved by antecedent views on the point. In an 
inquiry like that which we have undertaken, however, 
such easy and indifferent judgment would obviously be 
out of place, and the point we have to determine is not 
whether an author may have been acquainted with our 
Gospels, but whether he furnishes testimony that he 
actually was in possession of our present Gospels and 
regarded them as authoritative. 

We have already mentioned that the author of the Cle- 
mentine Homilies never names the source from which his 
quotations are derived. Of these very numerous quota- 
tions we must distinctly state that only two or three, of 
a very brief and fragmentary character, literally agree 
with our Synoptics, whilst all the rest differ more or 
less widely from the parallel passages in these Gospels. 
Many of these quotations are repeated more than once 
with the same persistent and characteristic variations, 
and in several cases, as we have already seen, they agrec 
with quotations of Justin from the Memoirs of the 
Apostles. Others, again, have no parallels at all in our 
Gospels, and even Apologists generally are compelled to 
admit the use also of an apocryphal Gospel. As in the 
case of Justin, therefore, the singular phenomenon is 
presented of a vast number of quotations of which only 
one or two brief phrases, too fragmentary to avail as 
evidence, perfectly agree with our Gospels ; whilst of the 
rest all vary more or less, some merely resemble combined 
passages of two Gospels, others merely contain the sense, 
some present variations likewise found in other writers 


THE CLEMENTINES. 9 


or in various parts of the Homilies are repeatedly quoted 
with the same variations, and others are not found in 
our Gospels at all. Such phenomena cannot be fairly 
accounted for by any mere theory of imperfect memory 
or negligence. The systematic variation from our 
Synoptics, variation proved by repetition not to be acci- 
dental, coupled with quotations which have no parallels 
at all in our Gospels, naturally point to the use of a 
different Gospel. In no case can the Homilies be 
accepted as furnishing evidence of any value even of the 
existence of our Gospels. ; 

As it is impossible here to examine in detail all of the 
quotations in the Clementine Homilies, we must content 
ourselves with the distinct statement of their character 
which we have already made, and merely illustrate 
briefly the different classes of quotations, exhausting, 
however, those which literally agree with passages in the 
Gospels. The most determined of recent Apologists do 
net afford us an opportunity of testing the passages 
upon which they base their assertion of the use of our 
Synoptics, for they merely assume that the author used 
them without producing instances.’ 

The first quotation which agrees with a passage in our 
Synoptics occurs in Hom. iii. 52: “ And he cried, saying : 
Come unto me all ye that are weary,” which agrees with 
the opening words of Matt. xi. 28, but the phrase does 
not continue, and is followed by the explanation : “that 


1 Tischendorf only devotes a dozen lines, with a note, to the Clemen- 
tines, and only in connection with our fourth Gospel, which shall here- 
ufter have our attention. Wann wurden τι. 8. w., p. 90. In the same 
way Canon Westcott passes them over in a short paragraph, merely 
asserting the allusions to our Gospels to be ‘ generally admitted,” and 
only directly referring to one supposed quotation from Mark which we 
- shall presently examine, and one which he affirms to be from the fourth 
Gospel. On the Canon, p. 251 ἢ, 


10 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


is, who are seeking the truth and not finding it.”? [Ὁ is 
evident, that so short and fragmentary a phrase cannot 
prove anything.? 

The next passage occurs in Hom. xvi. 15: “ For 
Isaiah said : I will open my mouth in parables, and 1 
will utter things that have been kept secret from the 
foundation of the world.”? Now this passage, with a 
slightly different order of words, is found in Matt. xiii. 
35. After giving a series of parables, the author of the 
Gospel says (v. 34), “ All these things spake Jesus unto 
the multitudes in parables ; and without a parable spake 
he not unto them; (v. 35,) That it might be fulfilled 
which was spoken by the prophet (Isaiah) saying: I will 
open my mouth in parables, &c.” ‘There are two pecu- 
liarities which must be pointed out in this passage. 
It is not found in Isaiah, but in Psalm Ixxviii. 2,* 
and it presents a variation from the version of the lxx. 
Both the variation and the erroneous reference to Isaiah, 
therefore, occur also in the Homily. The first part of 
the sentence agrees with, but the latter part is quite 
different from, the Greek of the lxx., which reads: “I 
will utter problems from the beginning,” φθέγξομαι 
προβλήματα ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς 

The Psalm from which the quotation is really taken 
is, by its superscription, ascribed to Asaph, who, in the 
Septuagint version of IT’ Chronicles xxix. 30, is called a 
prophet.© It was, therefore, early asserted that the 

1 Διὸ καὶ ἐβόα na yer" ‘ Δεῦτε πρὸς μὲ πάντες of κοπιῶντες. τουτέστιν, of THY 
ἀλήθειαν ζητοῦντες καὶ μὴ εὑρίσκοντες αὐτήν. Hom. iil. 52. 

5 Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. Justin’s, u. 5. w., p. 961. 

3 Καὶ τὸν “Hoatay εἰπεῖν. ᾿Ανοίξω τὸ στόμα μου ἐν παραβολαῖς καὶ ἐξιρρυξομῷ 
κεκρυμμένα ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου. “Hom. ΧΥΠ]. 15. 

4 The Vulgate reads: aperiam in parabolis os meum: loquar proposi- 


tiones ab initio. Ps. Ixxyiii. 2. 
5 Ps. lxxyii. 2. δ. ἐν λόγοις Δαυὶδ καὶ ᾿Ασὰφ τοῦ προφήτου. 


THE CLEMENTINES. 11 


original reading of Matthew was “ Asaph,” instead of 
“ Tsaiah.” 

Porphyry, in the third century, twitted Christians 
with this erroneous ascription by their inspired evangelist 
to Isaiah of a passage from a Psalm, and reduced the 
Fathers to great straits. Eusebius, in his commentary 
on this verse of the Psalm, attributes the insertion of the 
words, “by the prophet Isaiah,” to unintelligent copyists, 
and asserts that in accurate MSS. the name is not added 
to the word prophet. Jerome likewise ascribes the 
insertion of the name Isaiah for that of Asaph, which was 
originally written, to an ignorant scribe,' and in the 
commentary on the Psalms, generally, though probably 
falsely, ascribed to him, the remark is made that many 
copies of the Gospel to that day had the name “ Isaiah,” 
for which Porphyry had reproached Christians,? and the 
writer of the same commentary actually allows himself 
to make the assertion that Asaph was found in all the 
old codices, but ignorant men had removed it. The fact 
is, that the reading “ Asaph” for “Isaiah” is not found 
in any extant MS., and, although “Isaiah” has dis- 
appeared from all but a few obscure codices, it cannot be 
denied that the name anciently stood in the text. In 
the Sinaitic Codex, which is probably the earliest MS. 
extant, and which is assigned to the fourth century, 
“the prophet Jsaiah” stands in the text by the first 
hand, but is erased by the second (8). 


1 Comment. Matt., xiii. 35. 

? Multa evangelia usque hodie ita habent : Utimpleretur, quod scriptum 
est per Jsaiam prophetam, &e., &e. Hieron., Opp., vii. p. 270 f. 

3. Asaph inyenitur in omnibus veteribus codicibus, sed homines igno- 
rantes tulerunt illud. To this Credner pertinently remarks: ‘“ Die Noth, 
in welche die guten Kirchenviter durch Porphyrius gekommen waren, 
erlaubte auch eine Liige. Sie geschah ja: im majorem Dei gloriam, 
Beitriige, i. p. 304. 

4 Of. Credner, Beitrage, i. p. 303 


12 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


The quotation in the Homily, however, is clearly not 
from our Gospel. It is troduced by the words “ For 
Isaiah says :” and the context is so different from that in 
Matthew, that it seems impossible that the author of the 
Homily could have had the passage suggested to him by 
the Gospel. It occurs in a discussion between Simon 
the Magician and Peter. The former undertakes to 
prove that the Maker of the world is not the highest 
God, and amongst other arguments he advances the 
passage : “ No man knew the Father, &c.,” to show that 
the Father had remained concealed from the Patriarchs, 
&e., until revealed by the Son, and in reply to Peter he 
retorts, that if the supposition that the Patriarchs were 
not deemed worthy to know the Father was unjust, the 
Christian teacher was himself to blame, who said: “I 
thank thee, Lord of heaven and earth, that what was 
concealed from the wise thou hast revealed to suckling 
babes.” Peter argues that in the statement of Jesus : 
“No man knew the Father, &c.,” he cannot be con- 
sidered to indicate another God and Father from him 
who made the world, and he continues: “For the 
concealed things of which he spoke may be those of the 
Creator himself ; for Isaiah says: ‘I will open my mouth, 
&c. Do you admit, therefore, that the prophet was not 
ignorant of the things concealed,”’ and so on. There is 
absolutely nothing in this argument to indicate that the 
passage was suggested by the Gospel, but, on the con- 
trary, it is used in a totally different way, and is quoted 
not as an evangelical text, but as a saying from the Old 
Testament, and treated in connection with the prophet 
himself, and not with its supposed fulfilment in Jesus. 
It may be remarked, that in the corresponding part of 
the Recognitions, whether that work be of older or more 


1 Hom., xviii. 1—15. 


THE CLEMENTINES. 13 


recent date, the passage does not occur at all. Now, 
although it is impossible to say how and where this 
erroneous reference to a passage of the Old Testament 
first occurred, there is no reason for affirming that it 
originated in our first Synoptic, and as little for asserting 
that its occurrence in the Clementine Homilies, with so 
different a context and object, involves the conclusion 
that their author derived it from the Gospel, and not 
from the Old Testament or some other source. On the 
contrary, the peculiar argument based upon it in the 
Homilies suggests a different origin, and it is very 
probable that the passage, with its erroneous reference, 
was derived by both from another and common 
source. i 

Another passage is a phrase from the “ Lord’s Prayer,” 
which occurs in Hom. xix. 2: “ But also in the prayer 
which he commended to us, we have it said: Deliver us 
from the evil one” (Ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ). It 
need scarcely be said, however, that few Gospels can 
have been composed without including this prayer, and 
the occurrence of this short phrase demonstrates nothing 
more than the mere fact, that the author of the Homilies 
was acquainted with one of the most universally known 
lessons of Jesus, or made use of a Gospel which con- 
tained it. There would have been cause for wonder had 
he been ignorant of it. 

The only other passage which agrees literally with our 
Gospels is also a mere fragment from the parable of the 
Talents, and when the other references to the same 
parable are added, it is evident that the quotation is not 
from our Gospels. In Hom. iii. 65, the address to the 
good servant is introduced: “ Well done, good and 
faithful servant” (Εὖ, δοῦλε ἀγαθὲ καὶ murré), which agrees 


14 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


with the words im Matt. xxv. 21. The allusion to the 
parable of the talents in the context is perfectly clear, 
and the passage occurs in an address of the Apostle 
Peter to overcome the modest scruples of Zaccheus, the 
former publican, who has been selected by Peter as his 
successor over the Church of Czesarea when he is about 
to leave in pursuit of Simon the Magician. Anticipating 
the possibility of his hesitating to accept the office, Peter, 
in an earlier part of his address, however, makes fuller 
allusions to the same parable of the talents, which we 
must contrast with the parallel in the first Synoptic. 
“But if any of those present, having the ability to 
instruct the ignorance of men, shrink back from it, 
considering only his own ease, then let him expect to 
hear :”’ 


Hom. m1. 61. Matt. xxv. 26—30. 


Thou wicked and slothful ser- 
vant ; 


thou oughtest to have put out my 
money with the exchangers, and 
at my coming I should have ex- 
acted mine own. 


Cast ye the unprofitable servant 
into the darkness without. 





Δοῦλε πονηρὲ καὶ ὀκνηρέ, 


ἐκβάλετε τὸν ἀχρεῖον δοῦλον εἰς τὸ 
σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον. | 


! 


1 Luke xix. 23, substitutes ἔπραξα for ἐκομεισάμην. 


y. 26. Thou wicked and slothful 
servant, thou knewest that I reap 
where I sowed not, and gather 
from where I strawed not. 

y. 27. Thou oughtest therefore to 
have put my money to the ex- 
changers, and at my coming I 
should have receiyed mine own 

y. 28, 29. Take therefore, &c. &c. 

y. 30. And cast ye the unprofit- 
able servant into the darkness with- 
out; there shall be weeping and 


| gnashing of teeth. 


v. 26. Πονηρὲ δοῦλε καὶ ὀκνηρέ, 


| ἤδεις ὅτε θερίζω, κιτιλ. 
ἔδει σε τὸ ἀργύριόν μου προ- | 

ας τὰ συ - 5 | 
βαλεῖν ἐπὶ τῶν τραπεζιτῶν, καὶ ἐγὼ ay 
| 


ἐλθὼν ἔπραξα τὸ ἐμόν" ᾿ 


y. 27. ἔδει σε οὖν βαλεῖν τὸ ἀργύ- 
ριόν μου τοῖς τραπεζίταις, καὶ ἐλθὼν 
ἐγὼ ἐκομισάμην" ἂν τὸ ἐμὸν σὺν τόκῳ. 

ε 

y. 28, 29, ἄρατε οὖν, κιτιλ. 

y. 30. καὶ τὸν ἀχρεῖον δοῦλον ἐκβά- 


λετε εἰς τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον" ἐκεῖ 


f 


| ἔσται 6 κλαυθμὸς, xT. 


THE CLEMENTINES. 15 


The Homily does not end here, however, but continues 
in words not found in our Gospels at all: “ And 
reasonably : ‘ For,’ he says, ‘it is thine, Ὁ man, to prove 
my words as silver and as money are proved by the ex- 
changers.”’' This passage is very analogous to another 
saying of Jesus, frequently quoted from an apocryphal 
Gospel, by the author of the Homilies, to which we shall 
hereafter more particularly refer, but here merely point 
out : “ Be ye approved money-changers ” (γίνεσθε τραπε- 
ζῦται δόκιμοι). "5 The variations from the parallel passages 
in the first and third Gospels, the peculiar application of 
the parable to the words of Jesus, and tle addition of a 
saying not found in our Gospels, warrant us in denying 
that the quotations we are considering can be appro- 
priated by our canonical Gospels, and, on the contrary, 
give good reason for the conclusion, that the author 
derived his knowledge of the parable from another 
source. 

There is no other quotation in the Clementine Homi- 
lies which literally agrees with our Gospels, and it is 
difficult, without incurring the charge of partial selection, 
to illustrate the systematic variation in such very nume- 
rous passages as occur in these writings. It would be 
tedious and unnecessary to repeat the test applied to the 
quotations of Justin, and give in detail the passages from 
the Sermon on the Mount which are found in the 
Homilies. Some of these will come before us presently, 
but with regard to the whole, which are not less than 
fifty, we may broadly and positively state that they all 
more or less differ from our Gospels. To take the 


' Kal εὐλόγως. Σοῦ yap, φησὶν, ἄνθρωπε, τοὺς λόγους μου ὡς ἀργύριον ἐπὶ 
τραπεζιτῶν βαλεῖν, καὶ ὡς χρήματα δοκιμάσαι. Hom. iii. 61. - 
3 Hom, iii. 50, ii. 51, &e., &e. 


\ 


16 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


severest test, however, we shall compare those further 
passages which are specially adduced as most closely 
following our Gospels, and neglect the vast majority 
which most widely differ from them. In addition to the 
passages which we have already examined, Credner! 
points out the following. The first is from Hom. xix. 
2.2 “Tf Satan cast out Satan he is divided against 
himself: how then shall his kmgdom stand?” In the 
first part of this sentence, the Homily reads, ἐκβάλλη for 
the ἐκβάλλει of the first Gospel, and the last phrase in 
each is as follows :— 


Hom. πῶς οὖν αὐτοῦ στήκῃ ἡ βασιλεία ;" 
Matt. πῶς οὖν σταθήσεται ἢ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ ; 


The third Gospel differs from the first as the Homily 
does from both. The next passage is from Hom. xix. 
7.3 “For thus, said our Father, who was without 
deceit: out of abundance of heart mouth speaketh.” 
The Greek compared with that of Matt. xi. 34. 


Hom. Ἐκ περισσεύματος καρδίας στόμα λαλεῖ. 
Matt. Ἔκ γὰρ τοῦ περισσεύματος τῆς καρδίας τὸ στόμα λαλεῖ. 


The form of the homily is much more proverbial. The 
next passage occurs in Hom. iii. 52: “ Every plant which 
the heavenly Father did not plant shall be rooted up.” 
This agrees with the parallel in Matt. xv. 13, with the 
important exception, that although in the mouth of 
Jesus, “the heavenly Father” is substituted for the 
“my heavenly Father” of the Gospel. The last passage 
pointed out by Credner, is from Hom. vui. 4: “ But 
many” he said also, “called, but few chosen,’ which may 
be compared with Matt. xx. 16, ἄς, 


Hom. Δλλὰ καὶ, πολλοὶ, φησὶν, κλητοὶ, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοί. 
Matt. πολλοὶ γὰρ εἰσιν κλητοὶ, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοί. 
τ Credner, Beitriige, i. p. 285; ef. p. 302. 


2 Of. Matt. xii. 26. 3 Cf. Matt. xii. 84. 3 
4 








THE CLEMENTINES. 17 


We have already fully discussed this passage of the 
Gospel in connection with the “Epistle of Barnabas,”? 
and need not say more here. 

The variations in these passages, it may be argued, 
are not very important. Certainly, if they were the 
exceptional variations amongst a mass of quotations 
perfectly agreeing with parallels in our Gospels, it might 
be exaggeration to base upon such divergences a con- 
clusion that they were derived from a different source. 
When it is considered, however, that the very reverse is 
the case, and that these are passages selected for their 
closer agreement out of a multitude of others either 
more decidedly differing from our Gospels or not found 
in them at all, the case entirely changes, and variations 
being the rule instead of the exception, these, however 
slight, become evidence of the use of a Gospel different 
from ours. As an illustration of the importance of slight 
variations in connection with the question as to the 
source from which quotations are derived, the following 
may at random be pointed out. The passage “See 
thou say nothing to any man, but go thy way, show 
thyself to the priest” (Ὅρα μηδενὶ μηδὲν εἴπῃς, ἀλλὰ ὕπαγε 
σεαυτὸν δεῖξον τῷ ἱερεῖ) occurring in a work like the 
Homilies would, supposing our second Gospel no longer 
extant, be referred to Matt. viii. 4, with which it en- 
tirely agrees with the exception of its containing the 
one extra word μηδὲν. It is however actually taken 
from Mark i. 44, and not from the first Gospel. Then 
again, supposing that our first Gospel had shared the fate 
of so many others of the πολλοὶ of Luke, and in some 
early work the following passage were found: “A 
prophet is not without honour except in his own country 


1 Vol. i. p. 236 ff, 
VOL. 1, ο 


18 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


and in his own house” (Οὐκ ἔστιν προφήτης ἄτιμος εἰ μὴ 
ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ, πατρίδι αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ), this 
passage would undoubtedly be claimed by apologists as 
a quotation from Mark vi. 4, and as proving the existence 
and use of that Gospel. The omission of the words 
“and among his own kin” (καὶ ἐν τοῖς ovyyevedow αὐτοῦ) 
would at first be explained as mere abbreviation, or 
defect of memory, but on the discovery that part or all 
of these words are omitted from some MSS., that for 
instance the phrase is erased from the oldest manuscript 
known, the Cod. Sinaiticus, the derivation from the 
second Gospel would be considered as established. ‘The 
author notwithstanding might never have seen that 
Gospel, for the quotation is taken from Matt. xii. 57.? 
We have already quoted the opinion of De Wette as 
to the inconclusive nature of the deductions to be drawn 
from the quotations in the pseudo-Clementine writings 
regarding their source, but in pursuance of the plan we 
have adopted we shall now examine the passages which 
he cites as most nearly agreeing with our Gospels. The 
first of these occurs in Hom. ui. 18: ‘The Scribes and 
the Pharisees sit upon Moses’ seat ; all things therefore, 
whatsoever they speak to you, hear them,” which is 
compared with Matt. xxii. 2, 3: “The Scribes and 
the Pharisees sit upon Moses’ seat; all things therefore, 
whatsoever they say to you, do and observe.” The 
Greek of the latter half of these passages we subjoin. 


“ Δ “- 
Hom. πάντα οὖν ὅσα λέγωσιν ὑμῖν, ἀκούετε αὐτῶν. 
Matt. πάντα οὖν ὅσα ἐὰν εἴπωσιν ὑμῖν ποιήσατε καὶ τηρεῖτε." 


1 ἰδίᾳ, though not found in all MSS., has the authority of the Cod. 
Sinaiticus and other ancient texts. ἡ 

2 Cf. Matt. yi. 19—22; Luke ix, 57—60, &., Ke. 

3 Kinl. N. T., p. 115. 

ὁ It is unnecessary to point out the yarious readings of the three last 





THE CLEMENTINES. 19 


That the variation in the Homily is deliberate and 
derived from the Gospel used by the author is clear 
from the continuation: ‘‘ Hear them (αὐτῶν), he’ said, as 
entrusted with the key of the kingdom, which is know- 
ledge, which alone is able to open the gate of life, 
through which alone is the entrance to eternal life. But 
verily, he says: They possess the key indeed, but those 
who wished to enter in they do not allow.”! The αὐτῶν 
is here emphatically repeated, and the further quotation 
and reference to the denunciation of the Scribes and 
Pharisees continues to differ distinctly both from the 
account in our first and third Gospels. The passage in 
Matt. xxiii. 13, reads: “But woe unto you, Scribes and 
Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut the kingdom of heaven 
against men; for ye go not in yourselves neither suffer 
ye them that are entering to. go in.”? The parallel in 
Luke xi. 52 is not closer. There the passage regarding 
Moses’ seat is altogether wanting, and in ver. 52, where 
the greatest similarity, exists, the “lawyers” instead of 
the “Seribes and Pharisees” are addressed. The verse 
reads: “ Woe unto you, Lawyers! for ye have taken 
away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, 
and them that were entering in ye hindered.”* The 
first Gospel has not the direct image of the key at 
all: the Scribes and Pharisees “shut the kingdom of 


words in various MSS. Whether shortened or inverted, the difference 
from the Homily remains the same. 

1 Αὐτῶν δὲ, εἶπεν, ὡς τὴν κλεῖδα τῆς βασιλείας πεπιστευμένων, ἥτις ἐστὶ 
γνῶσις, ἣ μόνη τὴν πύλην τῆς ζωῆς ἀνοῖξαι δύναται, δ ἧς μόνης εἰς τὴν αἰωνίαν 
ζωὴν εἰσελθεῖν ἔστιν. ᾿Αλλὰ ναὶ, φησὶν, κρατοῦσι μὲν τῆν κλεῖν, τοῖς δὲ βουλο- 
μένοις εἰσελθεῖν οὐ παρέχουσιν. Hom. iii. 18 ; cf. Hom. iii. 70, xviii. 15, 16. 

3 Οὐαὶ, κιτιλ. . . . . ὅτι κλείετε τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν 
ἀνθρώπων' ὑμεῖς γὰρ οὐκ εἰσέρχεσθε, οὐδὲ τοὺς εἰσερχομένους ἀφίετε εἰσελθεῖν. 
Matt. xxiii. 19, 

3 Οὐαὶ ὑμῖν τοῖς νομικοῖς, ὅτι ἤρατε τὴν κλεῖδα τῆς γνώσεως" αὐτοὶ οὐκ εἰσήλθατε 
καὶ τοὺς εἰσερχομένους ἐκωλύσατε. Luke xi. 52, 


σᾶ 


20 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


heaven ;” the third has “ the key of knowledge” (κλεῖδα 
τῆς γνώσεως) taken away by the lawyers, and not by the 
Scribes and Pharisees, whilst the Gospel of the Homilies 
has the key of the kingdom (κλεῖδα τῆς βασιλείας), and 
explains that this key is knowledge (ἥτις ἐστὶ γνῶσις). 
It is apparent that the first Gospel uses an expression 
more direct than the others, whilst the third Gospel 
explains it, but the Gospel of the Homilies has in all 
probability the simpler original words : the “key of the 
kingdom,” which both of the others have altered for the 
purpose of more immediate clearness. In any case it 
is certain that the passage does not agree with our 
Gospel.? 

The next quotation referred to by De Wette is in 
Hom. iii. 51: “‘ And also that he said: ‘I am not come 
to destroy the law . . . . the heaven and the 
earth will pass away, but one jot or one tittle shall in no- 
wise pass from the law.’” This is compared with Matt. 
v. 17, 18:? “Think not that I am come to destroy the 
law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to 
fulfil. (v.18) For verily I say unto you: Till heaven 
and earth pass away one jot or one tittle shall in nowise 
pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” The Greek of 
both passages reads as follows :--- 


Hom. rr. 51. | MATT. v.17, 18. 
Τὸ δὲ καὶ εἰπεῖν αὐτόν" | My νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον καταλῦσαι 
| τὸν νόμον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας" οὐκ ἦλθον 
Οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὸν νόμον. | καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι. 
* * * * 


| Vv. 18. ἀμὴν yap λέγω ὑμῖν, ἕως ἂν 
« > x , ¢ a 4 dA , ε > ‘ ἃ μα a 9A a 2 
O οὐρανὸς kat 7 γῆ παρελεύσονται ἰῶτα παρέλθῃ ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ; ἰῶτα ἕν ἢ 
δὲ ἐν ἢ μία κεραία οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ | 


n } , o a , , 
TOU νόμου. ᾿ νόμου, ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται. 


μία κεραία οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ 


1 Credner, Beitriige, i. p. 317 f. ; Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. Justin’s, p. 366 ἢ, 
Zeller, Die Apostelgesch., p. 57 f. 
2 Of. Luke xyi. 17. 


THE CLEMENTINES. 21 


That the omissions and variations in this passage are 
not accidental is proved by the fact that the same quota- 
tion occurs again literally in the Epistle from Peter! 
which is prefixed to the Homilies in which the παρελεύ- 
σονται is repeated, and the sentence closes at the same 
point. The author in that place adds: “This he said 
that all might be fulfilled” (τοῦτο δὲ εἴρηκεν, ἵνα τὰ πάντα 
γίνηται). Hilgenfeld considers this Epistle of much more 
early date than the Homilies, and that this agreement be- 
speaks a particular text.2 The quotation does not agree 
with our Gospels, and must be assigned to another source. 

The next passage pointed out by De Wette is the 
erroneous quotation from Isaiah which we have already 
examined.* That which follows is found in Hom, viii. 7: 
“ For on this account our Jesus himself said to one who 
frequently called him Lord, yet did nothing which he 
commanded ; Why dost thou say to me Lord, Lord, and 
doest not the things which I say?” ‘This is compared 
with Luke vi. 46 :* “But why call ye me Lord, Lord, 
and do not the things which I say ?” 


Hom, vii. 7. LUKE VI. 46. 
Τί pe λέγεις, Κύριε, κύρις, καὶ οὐ Τί δέ με καλεῖτε Κύριε, κύριε, καὶ 
ποιεῖς ἃ λέγω ; ᾿ οὐ ποιεῖτε ἃ λέγω ; 


This passage differs from our Gospels in having the 
second person singular instead of the plural, and in 
substituting λέγεις for καλεῖτε in the first phrase. 
The Homily, moreover, in accordance with the use of 
the second person singular, distinctly states that the 
saying was addressed to a person who frequently 
called Jesus “Lord,” whereas in the Gospels it forms 
part of the Sermon on the Mount with a totally imper- 
sonal application to the multitude. 


1 § il, . 2 Die Evy. Justin’s, p. 340. 
3 P. 10. Cf. Hom. xviii, 15; Matt. xiii, 35, 4 Of. Matt. vii. 21, 


22 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


The next passage referred to by De Wette is in Hom. 
xix. 2: “And he declared that he saw the evil one as 
lightning fall from heaven.” This is compared with 
Luke x. 18, which has no parallel in the other Gospels : 
‘‘ And he said to them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall 
from heaven.” 


Hom. ΧΙΧ. 2. ΤΙ υ ΠΕ x. 18. 

Καὶ ὅτι ἑώρακε τὸν πονηρὸν Επεν δὲ αὐτοῖς ᾿Εθεώρουν τὸν σατανᾶν 
ὡς ἀστραπὴν πεσόντα ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ | ὡς ἀστραπὴν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ πεσόντα. 
ἐδήλωσεν. 

The substitution of τὸν πονηρὸν for τὸν σατανᾶν, had 
he found the latter in his Gospel, would be all the more 
remarkable from the fact that the author of the Homilies 
has just before quoted the saying “If Satan cast out 
Satan,”? &c. and he continues in the above words to 
show that Satan had been cast out, so that the evidence 
would have been strengthened by the retention of the 
word in Luke had he quoted that Gospel. The variations, 
however, indicate that he quoted from another source.? 
The next passage pointed out by De Wette likewise 
finds a parallel only in the third Gospel. It occurs in 
Hom. ix. 22: “Nevertheless, though all demons and 
all diseases flee before you, in this is not to be your 
sole rejoicing, but in that, through grace, your names, 
as of the ever-living, are recorded in heaven.” This is 
compared with Luke x. 20: “Notwithstanding, in this 
rejoice not that the spirits are subject unto you, but 
rejoice that your names are written in the heavens.” 


Ho. 1x. 22. LUKE x, 20. 
3 24 Δ ΄ , Η͂ ‘ > , Η , “ ‘ 
Αλλ᾽ ὅμως κἂν πάντες δαίμονες μετὰ Πλὴν ἐν τούτῳ μὴ χαίρετε ὅτι τὰ 
’ cal »"λ᾽ ε ΄“ 4 ΄“ς΄ , 
πάντων τῶν παθῶν ὑμᾶς φεύγωσιν, | πνεύματα ὑμῖν ὑποτάσσεται, χαίρετε 
>» >, , , , > > sg, Ὁ a to > , > 
οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν τούτῳ μόνῳ χαίρειν, ἀλλ᾽ | δὲ ὅτι τὰ ὀνόματα ὑμῶν ἐγγέγραπται ἐν 
» a > > , δ ἫΝ - “ ΄“΄ 
ἐν τῷ Ov εὐαρεστίαν τὰ ὀνόματα ὑμῶν ἐν | τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. 
οὐρανῷ ὡς ἀεὶ ζώντων ἀναγραφῆναι. 





1 See p. 16, 2 Of. Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. Justin’s, p. 346 ἢ, 


THE CLEMENTINES, 23 


The differences between these two passages are too great 
and the peculiarities of the Homily too marked to 
require any argument to demonstrate that the quota- 
tion cannot be successfully claimed by our third Gospel. 
On the contrary, as one of so many other passages 
systematically varying from the canonical Gospels, it 
must be assigned to another source. 

De Wette says: “ A few others (quotations) presup- 
pose (voraussetzen) the Gospel of Mark,”! and he gives 
them. The first occurs in Hom. 11, 19: “Justa,? who is 
amongst us, a Syrophcenician, a Canaanite by race, whose 
daughter was affected by a sore disease, and who came to 
our Lord crying out and supplicating that he would heal 
her daughter. But he being also asked by us, said: ‘ It 
is not meet to heal the Gentiles who are like dogs from 
their using divers meats and practices, whilst the table in 
the kingdom has been granted to the sons of Israel.’ 
But she hearing this and desiring to partake like a dog of 
the crumbs falling from this table, having changed what 
was to lead the same life as the sons of the kingdom, 
she obtained, as she asked, the healing of her daughter.”* 
This is compared with Mark vii. 24—30,* as it is the 
only Gospel which calls the woman a Syrophcenician. 
The Homily, however, not only calls her so,a very unim- 
portant point, but gives her name as “Justa.” If, there- 


1 Binl. N. T., p. 115. 2 Cf, Hom. iii. 73; xiii. 7; 

3 ᾿Ἰοῦστά τις ἐν ἡμῖν ἐστι Συροφοινίκισσα, τὸ γένος Χανανῖτις, js τὸ θυγάτριον 
ὑπὸ χαλεπῆς νόσου συνείχετο, ἣ καὶ τῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν προσῆλθε βοῶσα καὶ 
ἱκετεύουσα, ὅπως αὐτῆς τὸ θυγάτριον θεραπεύσῃ. Ὃ δὲ, καὶ ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἀξιωθεὶς, 
εἶπεν: Οὐκ ἔξεστιν ἰᾶσθαι τὰ ἔθνη, ἐοικότα κυσὶν, διὰ τὸ διαφόροις χρῆσθαι τροφαῖς 
καὶ πράξεσιν, ἀποδεδομένης τῆς κατὰ τὴν βασιλείαν τραπέζης, τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραήλ. 
Ἢ δὲ τοῦτο ἀκούσασα, καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς τραπέζης, ὡς κύων, ψιχίων ἀποπιπτόντων 
συμμεταλαμβάνειν μεταθεμένη ὅπερ ἣν, τῷ ὁμοίως διαιτᾶσθαι τοῖς τῆς βασιλείας 
υἱοῖς, τῆς εἰς τὴν θυγατέρα, ὡς ἠξίωσεν ἔτυχεν ἰάσεως. Hom, ii. 19. 

* Of. Matt. xv. 21—28. 


24 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


fore, it be argued that the mention of her nationality 
supposes that the author found the fact in his Gospel, 
and that as we know no other but Mark! which gives 
that information, that he therefore derived it from our 
second Gospel, the additional mention of the name of 
- “Justa” on the same grounds necessarily points to the use 
of a Gospel which likewise contained it, which our Gospel 
does not. Nothing can be more decided than the varia- 
tion in language throughout this whole passage from the 
account in Mark, and the reply of Jesus is quite foreign 
to our Gospels. In Mark (vii. 25) the daughter has “an 
unclean spirit” (πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτον) ; in Matthew (xv. 22) 
she is “ grievously possessed by a devil” (κακῶς Sa:povi- 
ζεται), but in the Homily she is “affected by a sore 
disease” (ὑπὸ χαλεπῆς νόσου συνείχετο. The second 
Gospel knows nothing of any intercession on the part of 
the disciples, but Matthew has: “ And the disciples came 
and besought him (ἠρώτων αὐτὸν) saying: ‘Send her 
away, for she crieth after us,’”? whilst the Homily has 
merely “ being also asked by us,” (ἀξιωθεὶς) in the sense 
of intercession in her favour. The second Gospel gives 
the reply of Jesus as follows: “ Let the children first be 
filled: for it is not meet to take the bread of the chil- 
dren, and to cast it tothe dogs. And she answered and 
said unto him: ‘Yea, Lord, for the dogs also eat under the 
table of the crumbs of the children. And he said unto her : 
For this saying go thy way ; the devil is gone out of thy 
daughter.”* The nature of the reply of the woman is, 

* «The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation.” (ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἦν 
“Epis, Σύρα Φοινίκισσα τῷ γένει). Mark yii. 26. ‘‘ A woman of Canaan ” 
(γυνὴ Xavavaia). Matt. xy. 22. 2 Matt. xv. 23. 

* Mark vil. 27—29. “Ages πρῶτον χορτασθῆναι τὰ τέκνα" ov γάρ ἐστιν καλὸν 
λαβεῖν τὸν ἄρτον τῶν τέκνων καὶ τοῖς κυναρίοις βαλεῖν. ἡ δὲ ἀπεκρίθη καὶ λέγει 
αὐτῷ, Ναί, κύριε: καὶ γὰρ τὰ κυνάρια ὑποκάτω τῆς τραπέζης ἐσθίουσιν ἀπὸ τῶ» 
ψιχίων τῶν παιδίων. κιτιλ. 


THE CLEMENTINES. 25 


in the Gospels, the reason given for granting her request; 
but in the Homily the woman’s conversion to Judaism,’ 
that is to say Judeo-Christianity, is prominently advanced 
as the cause of her successful pleading. It is certain 
from the whole character of this passage, the variation of 
the language, and the reply of Jesus which is not in our 
Gospels at all, that the narrative was not derived from 
them but from another source.” 

The last of De Wette’s* passages is from Hom. iii. 57: 
“ Hear, O Israel; the Lord thy * God is one Lord.” This 
is a quotation from Deuteronomy vi. 4, which is likewise 
quoted in the second Gospel, xii. 29, in reply to the 
question, “ Which is the first Commandment of all? Jesus 
answered: The first is, Hear, O Israel ; the Lord our God 
is one Lord, and thou shalt love the Lord thy God,” &c. 
&c. In the Homily, however, the quotation is made in 
a totally different connection, for there is no question of 
commandments at all, but a clear statement of the cir- 
cumstances under which the passage was used, which 
excludes the idea that this quotation was derived from 
Mark xii. 29. The context in the Homily is as follows : 
“ But to those who were beguiled to imagine many gods 
as the Scriptures say, he said: Hear, O Israel,” &c., &¢.® 
There is no hint of the assertion of many gods in the 
Gospels ; but, on the contrary, the question is put by one 
of the scribes in Mark to whom Jesus says: “Thou art 
not far from the Kingdom of God.”® The quotation, 


1 Cf. Hom, xiii. 7. 

2 Cf, Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. Justin’s, p. 353 f. 

8 Hinl. N. T., p. 115. 

4 Although most MSS. have gov in this place, some, as for instance that 
edited by Cotelerius, read ὑμῶν. 

> Τοῖς δὲ ἠπατημένοις πολλοὺς θεοὺς ὑπονοεῖν, ὡς ai Τραφαὶ λέγουσιν, ἔφη. 
”Axove, Ἰσραὴλ, κιτιλ. Hom, 111. 57. 6 Mark xii, 34, 


26 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION, 


therefore, beyond doubt, must have been taken from 
a different Gospel. | 

We may here refer to the passage, the only one pointed 
out by him in connection with the Synoptics, the dis- 
covery of which Canon Westcott affirms, “has removed 
the doubts which had long been raised about those 
(allusions) to St. Mark.”? The discovery referred to 
is that of the Codex Ottobonianus by Dressel, which 
contains the concluding part of the Homilies, and which 
was first published by him in 1853. Canon Westcott 
says: “Though St. Mark has few peculiar phrases, one 
of these is repeated verbally in the concluding part of 
the 19th Homily.”* The passage is as follows: Hom. 
xix. 20: “ Wherefore also he explained to his disciples 
privately the mysteries of the kingdom of the heavens.” 
This is compared with Mark iv, 34. .. . and privately 
to his own disciples, he explained all things.” 


Hom. xx. 20. MARK Iy, 84. 

Aw καὶ τοῖς αὑτοῦ μαθηταῖς κατ᾽ ἰδίαν . + κατ᾽ ἰδίαν δὲ τοῖς ἰδίοις μαθη- 
ἐπέλυε τῆς τῶν οὐρανῶν βασιλείας τὰ | ταῖς ἐπέλυεν πάντα. 
μυστήρια. | 
We have only a few words to add to complete the whole 
of Dr. Westcott’s remarks upon the subject. He adds 
after the quotation: “This is the only place where 
ἐπιλύω occurs in the Gospels.’* We may, however, 
point out that it occurs also in Acts xix. 39 and 2 Peter 
i. 20. It is upon the coincidence of this word that 
Canon Westcott rests his argument that this passage is a 


1 On the Canon, p. 251. 2 Of. Ib., p. 252. 

3 Dr. Westcott quotes this reading, which is supported by the Codices 
B, ©, Sinaiticus and others. The Codex Alexandrinus and a majority of 
other MSS. read for τοῖς ἰδίοις panrais,—* τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ," which is 
closer to the passage in the Homily. It is fair that this should be pointed 
out. 

4 On the Canon, p. 252, note 1. 


THE CLEMENTINES, 27 


reference to Mark. Nothing, however, could be weaker 
than such a conclusion from such an indication. The 
phrase in the Homily presents a very marked variation 
from the passage in Mark. The “all things” (πάντα) of 
the Gospel, reads: ‘‘ The mysteries of the kingdom of the 
heavens” (τῆς τῶν οὐρανῶν βασιλείας τὰ μυστήρια) in 
the Homily. The passage in Mark iv. 11, to which 
Dr. Westcott does not refer, reads τὸ μυστήριον τῆς 
βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ. There is one very important matter, 
however, which our Apologist has omitted to point out, 
and which he passes over in convenient silence—the 
context in the Homily. The chapter commences thus : 
“And Peter said: We remember that our Lord and 
Teacher, as commanding, said to us: ‘Guard the 
mysteries for me, and the sons of my house.’ Wherefore 
also he explained to his disciples privately,” &.1 And 
then comes our passage. Now, here is a command of 
Jesus, in immediate connection with which the phrase 
before us is quoted, which does not appear in our Gospels 
at all, and which clearly establishes the use of a different 
source. The phrase itself which differs from Mark, as 
we have seen, may with all right be referred to the 
same unknown Gospel. 

It must be borne in mind that all the quotations which 
we have hitherto examined are those which have been 
selected as most closely approximating to passages in our 
Gospels. Space forbids our giving illustrations of the 
vast number which so much more widely differ from 
parallel texts in the Synoptics. We shall confine our- 
selves to pointing out in the briefest possible manner 


1 Καὶ ὁ Πέτρος: Μεμνήμεθα τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ Διδασκάλου, ὡς ἐντελλόμενος, 
εἶπεν Hiv’ Τὰ μυστήρια ἐμοὶ καὶ τοῖς υἱοῖς τοῦ οἴκου μου φυλάξατε. κιτιλ, 
Hom. xix, 20. 


28 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


some of the passages which are persistent in their 
variations or recall similar passages in the Memoirs of 
Justin. ‘The first of these is the injunction in Hom. iii. 
55: “ Let your yea be yea, your nay nay, for whatsoever 
is more than these cometh of the evil one.” The same 
saying is repeated in Hom. xix. with the sole addition of 
“and.” We subjoin the Greek of these, together with that 
of the Gospel and Justin with which the Homilies agree. 


Hom. iii. ὅδ. "Eoro ὑμῶν τὸ vai vai τὸ οὗ οὔ. 
Hom. xix. 2. Ἔστω ὑμῶν τὸ val vai καὶ τὸ οὗ οὔ. 
Apol.i.16. Ἔστω δὲ ὑμῶν τὸ ναὶ ναί καὶ τὸ οὗ οὔ. 
Matt. vy. 81. Ἔστω δὲ ὁ λόγος ὑμῶν ναὶ ναί οὗ οὔ. 


As we have already discussed this passage’ we need not 
repeat our remarks here. That this passage comes from 
a source different from our Gospels is rendered more 
apparent by the quotation in Hom. xix. 2 being preceded 
by another which has no parallel at all in our Gospels. 
“ And elsewhere he said, ‘He who sowed the bad seed is the 
devil” (Ὁ δὲ τὸ κακὸν σπέρμα σπείρας ἐστὶν ὁ διάβολος 5): 
and again: “ Give no pretext to the evil one.” ? (Μὴ δότε 
πρόφασιν τῷ πονηρῷ.) But in exhorting he prescribes : 
“Let your yea be yea,” &c. The first of these phrases 
differs markedly from our Gospels ; the second is not in 
them at all; the third, which we are considering, differs 
likewise in an important degree in common with Justin’s 
quotation, and there is every reason for supposing that 
the whole were derived from the same unknown source.® 

In the same Homily, xix. 2, there occurs also the 
passage which exhibits variations likewise found in 
Justin, which we have already examined,* and now 
merely point out. ‘Begone into the darkness without, 


1 Vol. i. p. 354, p. 376 ἢ. 2 Cf. Matt. xiii. 39. 
3 Of. Credner, Beitrage, i. p. 306; Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. Justin’s, p. 
360. 4 Vol. i. p. 415 f, 


THE CLEMENTINES. 29 


which the Father hath prepared for the devil and his 
angels.” The quotation in Justin (Dial. 76) agrees 
exactly with this, with the exception that Justin has 
Σατανᾷ instead of διαβόλῳ, which is not important, 
whilst the agreement in the marked variation from the 
parallel in the first Gospel establishes the fact of a 
common source different from ours.” 

We have also already * referred to the passage in Hom. 
xvii. 4. “No one knew (ἔγνω) the Father but the Son, 
even as no one knoweth the Son but the Father and 
those to whom the Son is minded to reveal him.” This 
quotation differs from Matt. xi. 27 in form, in language, 
and in meaning, but agrees with Justin’s reading of the 
same text, and as we have shown the use of the aorist 
here, and the transposition of the order, were character- 
istics of Gospels used by Gnostics and other parties in 
the early Church, and the passage with these variations 
was regarded by them as the basis of some of their 
leading doctrines.* That the variation is not accidental, 
but a deliberate quotation from a written source, is proved 
by this, and by the circumstance that the author of the 
Homilies repeatedly quotes it elsewhere in the same 
form.® It is impossible to suppose that the quotations 
in these Homilies are so systematically and consistently 
erroneous, and the only natural conclusion is that they 
are derived from a source different from our Gospels. °® 


' *¥arayere eis τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον, ὃ ἡτοίμασεν ὁ Πατὴρ τῷ διαβόλῳ καὶ τοῖς 
ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ. Hom. xix. 2; cf. Matt. χχυ. 41. 

2 Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. Justin’s, pp. 369, 233 f.; Credner, Beitriige, i, 
p. 211, p. 330; Mayerhof’, Einl. petr. Schr., p. 245 f. 

3 Vol. i. p. 402 ff. 

+ Treneus, Contra Heer., iv. 6, §§ 1, 3, 7; cf. vol. i. p. 406 f. 

5 Hom. xviii. 4, 6, 7, 8, 13, 90. 

6 Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. Justin’s, p.'201 ff., 351; Credner, Beitriige, i, 
p. 210 f., 248 f., 314, 330; DMayerhof’, ἘΠῚ], petr. Schr., p. 245; Zeller, 
Die Apostelgesch., p. 48; Baur, Unters. kan, Evy., p. 576. 


30 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


Another passage occurs in Hom. iii. 50: “ Wherefore 
ye do err, not knowing the true things of the Scriptures ; 
and on this account ye are ignorant of the power of 
God.” This is compared with Mark xii. 94 :} “Do ye 
not therefore err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the 
power of God.” 

Hom. m1. 50. MaRrK XI. 24. 

. Διὰ τοῦτο πλανᾶσθε, μὴ εἰδότες τὰ Οὐ διὰ τοῦτο πλανᾶσθε μὴ εἰδότες 
ἀληθὴ τῶν γραφῶν, οὗ εἵνεκεν ἀγνοεῖτε | Tas γραφὰς μηδὲ τὴν δύναμιν τοῦ 
τὴν δύναμιν τοῦ Θεοῦ. Θεοῦ ; 

The very same quotation is made both in Hom. 11. 51 
and xviii. 20, and in each case in which the passage 15 
introduced it isin connection with the assertion that there 
are true and false Scriptures, and that as there are in the 
Scriptures some true sayings and some false, Jesus by 
this saying showed to those who erred by reason of the 
false the cause of their error. There cannot be a doubt 
that the author of the Homilies quotes this passage from 
a Gospel different from ours, and this is demonstrated 
both by the important variation from our text and also 
by its consistent repetition, and by the context in which 
it stands.? 

Upon each occasion, also, that the author of the 
Homilies quotes the foregoing passage he likewise 
quotes another saying of Jesus which is foreign to our 
Gospels : ‘Be ye approved money-changers,” γίνεσθε 
τραπεζῖται δόκιμοι The saying is thrice quoted without 
variation, and each time, together with the preceding 
passage, it refers to the necessity of discrimination 
between true and false sayings in the Scriptures, as 
for instance: “ And Peter said: If, therefore, of the 


1 Cf, Matt. xxii. 29, which is still more remote. 
2 Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. Justin’s, p. 365. 
5. Hom. ii. 51, iii, 50, xviii. 20. 





THE CLEMENTINES. 91 


Scriptures some are true and some are false, our ‘Teacher 
rightly said: ‘Be ye approved money-changers,’ as in 
the Scriptures there are some approved sayings and some 
spurious.”? This is one of the best known of the 
apocryphal sayings of Jesus, and it is quoted by nearly. 
all the Fathers,? by many as from Holy Scripture, and 
by some ascribed to the Gospel of the Nazarenes, or 
the Gospel according to the Hebrews. There can be 
no question here that the author quotes an apocryphal 
Gospel. 

There is, in immediate connection with both the pre- 
ceding passages, another saying of Jesus quoted which 
is not found in our Gospels: “ Why do ye not discern 
the good reason of the Scriptures?” ‘' Διὰ τί od voetre 
τὸ εὔλογον τῶν ypapav.” * This passage also comes from 
a Gospel different from ours,® and the connection and 
sequence of these quotations is very significant. 

One further illustration, and we have done. We find 
the following in Hom. iii, 55: “And to those who 
think that God tempts, as the Scriptures say, he said : 
‘The evil one is the tempter, who also tempted him- 
self” ”® This short saying is not found in our Gospels. 

1 Hom, ii, 51. 

2 Apost. Constit., ii. 36; οἵ, 37; Clem. Al., Strom., i. 28, ὃ 177; ef. ii. 
4, § 15, vi. 10, ὃ 81, vii. 15, § 90; Origen, in Joan. T. xix., vol. iy. 
p. 289; Epiphanius, Heer., xliy. 2, p. 382; Hieron., Ep. ad Minery. et 
Alex., 119 (al. 152); Comm. in Ep. ad Ephes., iv.; Grabe, Spicil. Patr., 
i, p. 19 f,, 326; Cotelerius, Patr. Ap., i. p. 247 f.; Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. 
N. T., ii. p. 524. 

* Credner, Beitriige, i. p. 826 f.; Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. Justin’s, p. 369 ; 


De Wette, Hinl. N. T., p. 115, anm, f, 

4 Hom. iii. 50. 

5 Oredner, Beitriige, i. p. 326; Hilgenfeld, Die Evv. Justin's, p. 365; 
De Wette, Einl. N. T., p. 115, anm. f.; Cotelerius, Not. ad Clem. Hom., 
iii, 50. 

® Τοῖς δὲ οἰομένοις ὅτι ὁ θεὸς πειράζει, ws ai Τραφαὶ λέγουσιν ἔφη" ‘O πονηρός 
ἐστιν ὁ πειράζων, 6 καὶ αὐτὸν πειράσας. Hom, iti, δδ. : 


32 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


lt probably occurred in the Gospel of the Homilies 
in connection with the temptation of Jesus. It is not 
improbable that the writer of the Epistle of James, 
who shows acquaintance with a Gospel different from 
ours,! also knew this saying.” We are here again directed 
to the Ebionitish Gospel. Certainly the quotation is 
derived from a source different from our Gospels.* 

These illustrations of the evangelical quotations in the 
Clementine Homilies give but an imperfect impression of 
the character of the extremely numerous passages which 
occur in the work. We have selected for our examina- 
tion the quotations which have been specially cited by 
critics as closest to parallels in our Gospels, and have 
thus submitted the question to the test which was most 
favourable to the claims of our Synoptics. Space forbids 
our adequately showing the much wider divergence 
which exists in the great majority of cases between 
them and the quotations in the Homilies. To sum up 
the case: Out of more than a hundred of these quota- 
tions only four brief and fragmentary phrases really 
agree with parallels in our Synoptics, and these, we 
have shown, are either not used in the same context as 
in. our Gospels or are of a nature far from special to 
them. Of the rest, all without exception systematically 
vary more or less from our Gospels, and many in their 
variations agree with similar quotations in other writers, 
or on repeated quotation always present the same pecu- 
liarities, whilst others, professed to be direct quotations 
of sayings of Jesus, have no parallels in our Gospels at 
all. Upon the hypothesis that the author made use of 
our Gospels, such systematic divergence would be per- 


1 Of. ch. vy. 12. 2 Cf. ch. i. 13. 
3 Credner, Beitiiige, i. p. 806; Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. Justin’s, p. 339. 


THE CLEMENTINES. 33 


fectly unintelligible and astounding. On the other 
hand, it must be remembered that the agreement of a 
few passages with parallels in our Gospels cannot prove 
anything. The only extraordinary circumstance is that 
even using a totally different source, there should not 
have been a greater agreement with our Synoptics. But 
for the universal inaccuracy of the human mind, every 
important historical saying, having obviously only one 
distinct original form, would in all truthful histories 
have been reported in that one unvarying form. The 
nature of the quotations in the Clementine Homilies 
leads to the inevitable conclusion that their author 
derived them from a Gospel different from ours. The 
source of the quotations is never named throughout the 
work, and there is not the faintest indication of the 
existence of our Gospels. These circumstances render 
the Clementine Homilies, in any case, of no evidential 
value as to the origin and authenticity of the canonical 
Gospels. This mere fact, in connection with a work 
written a century and a half after the establishment of 
Christianity, and abounding with quotations of the dis- 
courses of Jesus, is in itself singularly suggestive. 

It is scarcely necessary to add that the author of the 
Homilies has no idea whatever of any canonical writ- 
ings but those of the Old Testament, though even with 
regard to these some of our quotations have shown that 
he held peculiar views, and believed that they con- 
tained spurious elements. There is no reference in the 
Homilies to any of the Epistles of the New Testament.' 

One of the most striking points in this work, on the 
other hand, is its determined animosity against the 


1 Westcott, On the Canon, p. 252, note 2; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, 
Ῥ. 57. 
VOL. Il. . D 


34 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


Apostle Paul. We have seen that a strong anti-Pauline 
tendency was exhibited by many of the Fathers, who, 
like the author of the Homilies, made use of Judeo- 
Christian Gospels different from ours. In this work, 
however, the antagonism against -the “Apostle of the 
Gentiles” assumes a tone of peculiar virulence. There 
cannot be a doubt that the Apostle Paul is attacked in 
this religious romance, as the great enemy of the true 
faith, under the hated name of Simon the Magician, 
whom Peter follows everywhere for the purpose of 
unmasking and confuting him. He is robbed of his 
title of “Apostle of the Gentiles,” which, together with 
the honour of founding the Church of Antioch, of 
Laodiczea, and of Rome, is ascribed to Peter. All that 
opposition to Paul which is implied in the Epistle to the 
Galatians and elsewhere? is here realized and exag- 
gerated, and the personal difference with Peter to which 
Paul refers* is widened into the most bitter animosity. 
In the Epistle of Peter to James which is prefixed to 
the Homilies, Peter says, in allusion to Paul: “For 
some among the Gentiles have rejected my lawful 
preaching and accepted certain lawless and foolish 


1 Baur, Paulus, i. p. 97 ff., 148, anm. 1, p. 250; K. 6. d. 3 erst. 
Jahrh.., p. 87 ff., 93, anm. 1 ; Tiibinger Zeitschr. f. Th., 1831, h. 4, p. 136 f. ; 
Dogmengesch. L, i. p. 155; Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii. p. 286 f.; 
Gfrorer, Allg. K. G., i. p. 257 ff. ; Hilgenfeld, Die Clem. Recogn. u. Hom., 
p- 319; Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1869, p. 353 ff.; Der Kanon, p. 11 f.; 
A. Kayser, Rev. de Théol., 1851, p. 142 f.; Lechler, Das apost. τι. nachap. 
Zeit., p. 457 f., p. 500; Réville, Essais de Crit. Relig., 1860, p. 35 ἢ: 
Renan, St. Paul, 1869, p. 303, note 8; Reuss, Hist. du Canon, p. 63, 
note 1; Ritschl, Entst. altk. Kirche, p. 277 ff. ; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugn., 
p- 57; Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., i. p. 372 ff. ; Uhihorn, Die Homilien, 
τι. 8. W., 1854, p. 297; Volkmar, Theol. Jahrb., 1856, p. 279 f.; Westcott, 
On the Canon, p. 252, note 2; Zeller, Apostelgeschichte, p. 158 f. 

* 1 Cor. i. 11, 12; 2 Cor. xi. 13, 20 f.; Philip. i. 15, 16. 

8. Gal. ii. 11; ef. 1 Cor. i. 11, 12. 


THE CLEMENTINES. 35 


teaching of the hostile man.”! First expounding a 
doctrine of duality, as heaven and earth, day and night, 
life and death,? Peter asserts that in nature the greater 
things come first, but amongst men the opposite is the 
case, and the first is worse and the second better.* He 
then says to Clement that it is easy according to this 
order to discern to what class Simon (Paul) belongs, 
“who came before me to the Gentiles, and to which 
I belong who have come after him, and have followed 
him as light upon darkness, as knowledge upon 
ignorance, as health upon disease.”* He continues: “ If 
he were known he would not be believed, but now, not 
being known, he is wrongly believed ; and though by 
‘his acts he is a hater, he is loved; and although an 
enemy, he is welcomed as a friend; and though he is 
death, he is desired as a saviour; and though fire, 
esteemed as light ; and though a deceiver, he is listened 
to as speaking the truth.” There is much more of this 
acrimonious abuse put into the mouth of Peter.6 The 
indications that it is Paul who is really attacked under 
the name of Simon are much too clear to admit of doubt. 
In Hom. xi. 35, Peter, warning the Church against false 
teachers, says: ‘He who hath sent us, our Lord and 
Prophet, declared to us that the evil one : 
announced that he would send from amongst his fol- 
lowers apostles? to deceive. Therefore above all remember 
to avoid every apostle, or teacher, or prophet, who first does 
not accurately compare his teaching with that of James 


1 Epist. Petri ad Jacobum, § 2. Canon Westcott quotes this passage 
with the observation, ‘‘ There can be no doubt that St. Paul is referred 
to as ‘the enemy.’” On the Canon, p. 252, note 2. 

2 Hom. ii. 15. 3 Tb., ii. 16. 4.10., ii. 17. 

δ᾽ Jb., ii. 18, Ξ 6 Of. Hom. iii. 59; vii. 2, 4, 10, 11. 

7 We have already pointed out that this declaration is not in our Gospels, 

D2 


36 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


called the brother of my Lord, and to whom was 
confided the ordering of the Church of the Hebrews 
in Jerusalem,” &c., lest this evil one should send a false 
preacher to them, “as he has sent to us Simon preaching 
a counterfeit of truth in the name of our Lord and 
᾿ disseminating error.” Further on he speaks more 
plainly still. Simon maintains that he has a truer 
appreciation of the doctrines and teaching of Jesus 
because he has received his imspiration by supernatural 
vision, and not merely by the common experience of the 
senses,” and Peter replies: “If, therefore, our Jesus 
indeed appeared to you in a vision, revealed himself, and 
spoke to you, it was only as an irritated adversary. 
. - . . But can any one through visions become’ 
wise in teaching? And if you say: ‘It is possible, 
then I ask, ‘ Wherefore did the Teacher remain and 
discourse for a whole year to those who were attentive ? 
And how can we believe your story that he appeared to 
you? And in what manner did he appear to you, when 
you hold opinions contrary to his teaching? But if 
seen and taught by him for a single hour you became 
his apostle :* preach his words, interpret his sayings, love 
his apostles, oppose not me who consorted with him. 
For you now set yourself up against me who am a firm 
rock, the foundation of the Church. If you were not 
an opponent you would not calumniate me, you would 
not revile my teaching im order that, in declaring what 
I have myself heard from the Lord, I may not be 
believed, as though I were condemned. . . . But 


- 3 Hom. xi. 35; cf. Galat.i. 7 5 3 70., xvii. 13 ff. 

* Cf 1 Cor. ix. 18 “Am I not an Apostle? have I not seen Jesus 
our Lord?” Cf. Galat.i. 1; i 12, “ For neither did I myself receive it 
by man, nor was I taught it, but by revelation of Jesus Christ.” 


THE CLEMENTINES. 37 


if you say that. 1 am condemned, you blame God who 
revealed Christ to me,’”? &c. This last phrase: “If you 
say that J am condemned” (Ἢ εἰ κατεγνωσμένον pe 
λέγεις) 1s an evident allusion to Galat. 11. 11: “1 
withstood him to the face, because he was condemned ” 
(ὅτι κατεγνωσμένος ἢν). 

We have digressed to a greater extent than we 
intended, but it is not unimportant to show the 
general character and tendency of the work we have 
been examining. The Clementine Homilies,—written 
perhaps about the end of the second century, which 
never name or indicate a single Gospel as the source 
of the author’s knowledge of evangelical history, whose 
quotations of sayings of Jesus, numerous as they are, 
systematically differ from the parallel passages of our 
Synoptics, or are altogether foreign to them, which 
denounce the Apostle Paul as an impostor, enemy of the 
faith, and disseminator of false doctrine, and therefore 
repudiate his Epistles, at the same time equally ignoring 
all the other writings of the New Testament, — can 
scarcely be considered as giving much support to any 
theory of the early formation of the New Testament 
Canon, or as affording evidence even of the existence of 
its separate books. 


2. 


Amone the writings which used formerly to be 
ascribed to Justin Martyr, and to be published along 
with his general works, is the short composition com- 
monly known as the “Epistle to Diognetus.” The 
ascription of this composition to Justin arose solely from 


1 Hom. xvii. 19. 


38 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


the fact that in the only known MS. of the letter there is 
an inscription Tod αὐτοῦ πρὸς Διόγνητον which from its 
connection was referred to Justin.’ The style and con- 
tents of the work, however, soon convinced crities that it 
could not possibly be written by Justin,? and although it 
has been ascribed by various isolated writers to Apollos, 
Clement, Marcion, Quadratus, and others, none of these 
guesses have been seriously supported, and critics are 
almost universally agreed in confessing that the author 
of the Epistle is entirely unknown. 

Such being the case, it need scarcely be said that the 
difficulty of assigning a date to the work with any 
degree of certainty is extreme, if it be not absolutely 
impossible to do so. ‘This difficulty, however, is in- 
creased by several circumstances. The first and most 
important of these is the fact that the Epistle to Diog- 
netus is neither quoted nor mentioned by any ancient 
writer, and consequently there is no external evidence 
whatever to indicate the period of its composition.* 
Moreover, it is not only anonymous but incomplete, or, at 
least, as we have it, not the work of a single writer. At 
the end of Chapter x. a break is indicated, and the two 

1 Otto, Ep. ad Diognetum, &¢., 1852, p. 11 f. 

2 Baur, Dogmengesch. I., i. p. 255; Gesch. chr. Kirche, i. p. 373; 
Bunsen, Analecta Ante-Nic., i. p. 103 ff. ; Christianity and Mankind, i. 
p. 170 f.; Credner, Beitriige, i. p. 50; Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii. p. 399 ; 
Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., ii. p. 138 ff.; Ewald, Gesch. 
Volkes Isr., vii. p. 251; Guericke, H’buch K. G., p. 152; C. D. a. Gross- 
heim, De ep. ad Diogn. Comm., 1828; Hollenberg, Der Br. ad Diogn., 
1853; Hilgenfeld, Die ap Vater, p. 1, cf. 9f.; Kayser, Rev. de Théol., 
1856, p. 258 ff.; Kirchhofer, QuellensammL., p. 36, anm.1; Méhler, Ueb. 
d. Br. an Diogn. Werke, 1839, i. p. 19 ff.; Reuss, Gesch. N. T., p. 289; 
Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 101; Tischendorf, Wann wurden, u. s. w., 
Ῥ. 40; Tillemont, Mém. eccl., tom. ii. pt. 1, p. 366, 493, note 1; Westcott, 
On the Canon, p. 74 f.; Zeller, Zie Apostelgesch., p. 50. 


3 Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., 11. p. 126 ; Kirchhofer, Quellen- 
sarninl,, p. 36, anm. 1. 


THE EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS. 39 


concluding chapters are unmistakably by a different and 
later hand.’ It is not singular, therefore, that there 
exists a wide difference of opinion as to the date of the 
first ten chapters, although all agree regarding the later 
composition of the concluding portion. It is assigned 
to various periods between about the end of the first 
quarter of the second century to the end of that century,” 
whilst others altogether denounce it as a modern forgery.* 
Nothing can be more insecure in one direction than the 
date of a work derived alone from internal evidence. 
Allusions to actual occurrences may with certainty prove 
that a work could only have been written after they had 
taken place. The mere absence of later indications in 
an anonymous Epistle only found in a single MS. of the 
thirteenth or fourteenth century, however, and which 
may have been and probably was written expressly in 
imitation of early Christian feeling, cannot furnish any 
solid basis for an early date. It must be evident that 


1 Credner, Der Kanon, p. 59 ff., 67, 76; Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii. 
Ῥ. 339; Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., 11. p. 142; Ewald, Gesech. 
Υ. Isr., vii. p. 251, anm. 1; Hilgenfeld, Die ap. Vater, p. 1; Otto, Just. 
Mart., ii. p. 201 n.; Reuss, Gesch. N. T., p. 290; Westcott, On the Canon, 
p. 75. 

2¢.A.D.117. Westcott,On the Canon, p. 76. A.D. 120—130, Ewald, 
Gesch. V. Isr., vil. p. 252. Between Hadrian and Marc. Aurel. Kayser, 
Rey. de Théol., 1856, p. 258. An elder contemporary of Justin. Tischen- 
dorf, Wann wurden, τι. s. w., p. 40. A.D. 1383—135, Otto, De Ep. ad 
Diogn., 1845; Bunsen, Chr. and Mankind,i. p.170. A.D.135, Reuss, Gesch. 
N. T., p. 289. A.D. 140, Credner, Der Kanon, p. 59; cf. Beitriige, 1. p. 
50. After A.D. 170, Scholten, Die 10. Zeugnisse, p. 101. Hardly before 
A.D. 180, Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii. p. 399. Hilgenfeld excludes it from 
the 2nd century. Die ap. Viter, p. 9f. Zeller considers it of no value, 
even if it contained quotations, on account of its late date. Die Apostel- 
gesch., p. 51; Theol. Jahrb., iv. p. 619 f. 

3 Donaldson considers it either a forgery by H. Stephanus the first 
editor, or by Greeks who came over to Italy when Constantinople was 
threatened by the Turks. Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., ii. p..141 f. So 
also Overbeck decides it to be a fictitious production written after the time 
of Constantine; Ueb. d. pseudojust. Br. an Diognet. Programm. 1872. . 


40 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


the determination of the date of this Epistle cannot 
therefore be regarded as otherwise than doubtful and 
arbitrary. It is certain that the purity of its Greek and 
the elegance of its style distinguish it from all other 
Christian works of the period to which so many 
assign it. 

The Epistle to Diognetus, however, does not furnish any 
evidence even of the existence of our Synoptics, for it is 
admitted that it does not contain a single direct quota- 
tion from any evangelical work.? We shall hereafter 
have to refer to this Epistle in connection with the fourth 
Gospel, but in the meantime it may be well to add that | 
in Chapter xii., one of those it will be remembered 
which are admitted to be of later date, a brief quotation 
is made from 1 Cor. vii. 1, introduced merely by the 
words, ὁ ἀπόστολος λέγει. 

1 Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 102; Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii. 
p. 399; Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., ii. p. 134 ff.; cf. Hwald, 
Gesch. V, Isr., vii. p. 253; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 74 f.; Kayser, 
Rey. de Théol., 1856, p. 257. 

2 Credner, Beitrage, i. p. 50; Kayser, Rev. de Théol., 1856, p. 257; 
Reuss, Hist. du Canon, p. 40 f.; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 102; 


Tischendorf, Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 40; Westcott, On the Canon, 
p. 78. 


BASILADES. 41 


CHAPTER VI. 
BASILIDES—-VALENTINUS. 


We must now turn back to an earlier period aud 
consider any evidence regarding the Synoptic Gospels 
which may be furnished by the so-called heretical 
writers of the second century. The first of these who 
claims our attention is Basilides, the founder of a system 
of Gnosticism, who lived in Alexandria about the year 
125 of our era.' With the exception of a very few brief 
fragments,? none of the writings of this Gnostic have 
been preserved, and all our information regarding them 
is therefore derived at second-hand from ecclesiastical 
writers opposed to him and his doctrines, and their 
statements, especially where acquaintance with, and the 
use of, the New Testament Scriptures are assumed, must 
be received with very great caution. The uncritical and 
inaccurate character of the Fathers rendered them pecu- 
liarly liable to be misled by foregone devout conclusions. 

Eusebius states that Agrippa Castor, who had written 
a refutation of the doctrines of Basilides, “Says that he 
had composed twenty-four books upon the Gospel.” 

1 Eusebius, H. E., iv. 7, 8,9; Baur, Gesch. chr. K., i. p. 196; David- 
son, Introd. N. T., ii. p. 388; Guericke, H’buch K. G., 1. p. 182; Lechler, 
Das ap. und nachap Zeit., p. 498; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 64 ; 
Tischendorf, Wann wurden, τι. 5. w., ps 50. 

2 Grabe, Spicil. Patr., ii. p. 39 ff., 65 ff. 


΄ , 
3 Φησὶν αὐτὸν εἰς μὲν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τέσσαρα πρὸς τοῖς εἴκοσι συντάξαι βιβλία. 


Ἢ. E., iv. 7. 


42 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


This is interpreted by Tischendorf, without argument, 
and in a most arbitrary and erroneous manner, to imply 
that the work was a commentary upon our four 
canonical Gospels ;! a conclusion the audacity of which 
can scarcely be exceeded. This is, however, almost 
surpassed by the treatment of Canon Westcott, who 
writes regarding Basilides: “It appears, moreover, that 
he himself published a Gospel—a ‘ Life of Christ’ as it 
would perhaps be called in our days, or ‘The Philosophy 
of Christianity ’2—but he admitted the historic truth of 
all the facts contained in the canonical Gospels, and used 
them as Scripture. For, in spite of his peculiar opinions, 
the testimony of Basilides to our ‘acknowledged’ books 
is comprehensive and clear. In the few pages of his 
writings which remain there are certain references to the 
Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. John,’* &c. 
Now in making, in such a manner, these assertions: in 
totally ignoring the whole of the discussion with regard 
to the supposed quotations of Basilides in the work com- 
monly ascribed to Hippolytus and the adverse results of 
learned criticism: in the unqualified assertions thus 
made and the absence either of explanation of the facts 
or the reasons for the conclusion : this statement must 
be condemned in the strongest manner as unworthy 
of a scholar, and only calculated to mislead readers 
who must generally be ignorant of the actual facts of 
the case. 

We know from the evidence of antiquity that Basilides 
made use of a Gospel, written by himself it is said, but 
certainly called after his own name.* An attempt has 


1 Wann wurden, u.s. w., p. 51 f. 
2 These names are pure inventions of Dr. Westcott’s fancy, of course. 
3 On the Canon, p. 255 f. 


4 Ausus fuit et Basilides scribere Evangelium et suo illud nomine titu- 


BASILIDES. 48. 


been made to explain this by suggesting that perhaps 
the Commentary mentioned by Agrippa Castor may have 
been mistaken for a Gospel;' but the fragments of that 
work which are still extant? are of a character which 
precludes the possibility that any work of which they 
formed a part could have been considered a Gospel.* 
Various opinions have been expressed as to the exact 
nature of the Gospel of Basilides. Neander affirmed it 
to be the Gospel according to the Hebrews which he 
brought from Syria to Egypt ;* whilst Schneckenburger 
held it to be the Gospel according to the Egyptians.® 
Others believe it to have at least been based upon one or 
other of these Gospels.6 There seems most reason for 
the hypothesis that it was a form of the Gospel according 
to the Hebrews, which we have found so generally in use 
amongst the Fathers. 

We have already quoted the passage in which 
Eusebius states, on the authority of Agrippa Castor, 
whose works are no longer extant, that Basilides had 


lare. Origen, Hom.i.in Lucam. Ausus est etiam Basilides Evangelium 
scribere quod dicitur secundum Basilidem. -Ambros., Comment in Luc. 
Proem. Hieron., Preef. in Matt.; cf. Credner, Beitrige, i. p. 37; Gesch. 
N. T. Kanon, p. 11; Bunsen, Bibelwerk, vil. p. 568; Davidson, Introd. 
N. T., ii. p. 389; Kirchhofer, Quellensamml., p. 414, anm. 3, p. 475; 
Neudecker, Einl. N. T., 1840, p. 85 f.; Schott, Isagoge, p. 23; Scholten, 
Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 64. 

1 Kirchhofer, Quellensamml., p. 414, anm. 3; Tischendorf, Wann 
wurden, τι. 8. w., p. 52, anm. 1; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 255 f., note 
4; @frorer, Allg. K. G., i., p. 340, anm.***; Nicolas, Et. sur les Ev. 
Apocr., p. 134. 

2 Grabe, Spicil. Patr., ii. p. 39 ff., 65 ff.; Clemens Al., Strom., iv. 12. 

3 Dr. Westcott admits this. On the Canon, p. 255, note 4. 

4 Gnost. Syst., p. 84; ef. K. G., 1843, ii. p. 709, anm. 2; Nicolas, Et. sur 
les Ey. Apocr., p. 134. 

5 Ueb. ἃ. Ey. ἃ. Agypt., 1884; cf. Gieseler, Entst. schr. Evv., 
p- 19. 

6 Gieseler, Entst. schr. Evv., p. 19; Bunsen, Bibelwerk, viii. p. 568 ; 
cf. Fabricius, Cod. Ap. N. T., i. p. 343, note m. 


44 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


composed a work in twenty-four books on the Gospel 
(τὸ εὐαγγέλιον), and we have mentioned the unwarranted 
inference of Tischendorf that this must have been 
a work on our four Gospels. Now, so far from de- 
riving his doctrines from our Gospels or other New 
Testament writings or acknowledging their authority, 
Basilides expressly states that he received his know- 
ledge of the truth from Glaucias, “the interpreter of 
Peter,” whose disciple he claimed to be,’ and he thus 
sets Gospels aside and prefers tradition? In men- 
tioning this fact Canon Westcott says: “At the same 
time he appealed to the authority of Glaucias, who, as 
well as St. Mark, was ‘an interpreter of St. Peter.’ 
Now we have here again an illustration of the same mis- 
leading system which we have already condemned, and 
shall further refer to, in the introduction after “Glaucias” 
of the words “ who as well as St. Mark was an interpreter 
of St. Peter.” The words in italics are the gratuitous 
addition of Canon Westcott himself, and can only have 
been inserted for one of two purposes: I[., to assert the 
fact that Glaucias was actually an interpreter of Peter 
as tradition represented Mark to be ; or 11., to insinuate 
to unlearned readers that Basilides himself acknowledged 
Mark as well as Glaucias as the interpreter of Peter. 
We can scarcely suppose the first to have been the 
intention, and we regret to be forced back upon the 
second, and infer that the temptation to weaken the 
inferences from the appeal of Basilides to the uncanonical 


rere rec καθάπερ 6 Βασιλείδης κἂν Travyiav ἐπιγράφηται διδάσκαλον, ὡς 
αὐχοῦσιν αὐτοὶ, τὸν Πέτρου ἑρμηνέα. Clemens Al., Strom., vii. 17, § 106. 

2 Credner, Beitrage, i. p. 37; Gfrérer, Allg. K. G., i. p. 340; Scholten, 
Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 64; cf. Bunsen, Bibelwerk, viii. p. 568. 
- § On the Canon, p. 255. 


BASILIDES. 45 


Glaucias, by coupling with it the allusion to Mark, was, 
unconsciously, no doubt, too strong for the apologist.’ 
Basilides also claimed to have received from a certain 
Matthias the report of private discourses which he had 
heard from the Saviour for his special instruction.? 
Agrippa Castor further stated, according to Eusebius, 
that in his ἐξηγητικὰ Basilides refers to Barcabbas and 
Barcoph (Parchor?) as prophets, as well as invents others 
for himself who never existed and claimed their authority 
for his doctrines.* With regard to all this Canon 
Westcott writes: “Since Basilides lived on the verge of 
the apostolic times, it is not surprising that he made 
use of other sources of Christian doctrine besides the 
canonical books. The belief in Divine Inspiration was 
still fresh and real,”® &c. It is apparent, however, that 
Basilides, in basing his doctrines on these Apocryphal 
books as inspired, and upon tradition, and in having a 
special Gospel called after his own name, which, there- 
fore, he clearly adopts as the exponent of his ideas of 
Christian truth, absolutely ignores the canonical Gospels 
altogether, and not only does not offer any evidence for 
their existence, but proves that he did not recognize any 
such works as of authority. Therefore there is no ground 


' We may add that the ‘‘Saint” inserted before Peter neither belongs 
to Clement nor to Basilides, but is introduced into the quotation by Dr. 
Westcott. 

2 Βασιλείδης τοίνυν καὶ ᾿Ισίδωρος, ὁ Βασιλείδου παῖς γνήσιος καὶ μαθητής, 
φασὶν εἰρηκέναι Ματθίαν αὐτοῖς λόγους ἀποκρύφους, obs ἤκουσε παρὰ τοῦ σωτῆρος 
κατ᾽ ἰδίαν διδαχθείς. Hippolytus, Refut. Omn. Heer., vii. 20; ed. Duncker 
et Schneidewin, 1859. μ 

3. Jsidorus, his son and disciple, wrote ἃ commentary on the prophecy of 
Parchor (Clem. Al., Strom., vi. 6, § 53), in which he further refers to the 
‘* prophecy of Cham.” Of. Neander, Allg. K. G., 1843, ii. p. 703 ff. 

aa as Ὑ ὐΣ προφήτας δὲ ἑαυτῷ ὀνομάσαι Βαρκαββᾶν καὶ Βαρκὼφ καὶ ἄλλους 
ἀνυπάρκτους τινὰς ἑαυτῷ συστησάμενον, κιτιλ. Euseb., H. E., iv. 7. 

® On the Canon, p. 255. 


46 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


whatever for Tischendorf’s assumption that the com- 
mentary of Basilides “ on the Gospel ” was written upon 
our Gospels, but that idea is on the contrary negatived in 
the strongest way by all the facts of the case. The per- 
fectly simple interpretation of the statement is that long 
ago suggested by Valesius,? that the Commentary of Basi- 
lides was composed upon his own Gospel,? whether it was 
the Gospel according to the Hebrews or the Egyptians. 
Moreover, it must be borne in mind that Basilides used 
the word “Gospel” in a peculiar technical way. Hip- 
polytus, in the work usually ascribed to him, writing of 
the Basilidians and describing their doctrines, says: 
“When therefore it was necessary to reveal, he (1) says, 
us, who are children of God, in expectation of which 
revelation, he says, the creature groaneth and travaileth, — 
the Gospel came into the world, and came through 
(διῆλθε ? prevailed over) every principality and power 
and dominion, and every name that is named.”* “The 
Gospel, therefore, came first from the Sonship, he says, 
through the Son, sitting by the Archon, to the Archon, 
and the Archon learnt that he was not the God of all 
things but begotten,’® &. “The Gospel is the know- 
ledge of supramundane matter,’®&c. This may not be 


1 Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii. p. 389; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 64 ; 
Credner, Der Kanon, p. 24. 

2 Cf. Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T., i. p. 343, not. m. 

3 Neudecker, Einl. N. T., p. 85; Nicolas, Et. sur les Ey. Apocr., 
p. 134. 

* ᾿Ἐπεὶ οὖν ἔδει ἀποκαλυφθῆναι, φησίν, ἡμᾶς τὰ τέκνα τοῦ θεοῦ, περὶ ὧν ἐστέ- 
ναξε, φησίν, ἡ κτίσις καὶ ὥδινεν, ἀπεκδεχομένη τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν, ἦλθε τὸ ἐναγγέλιον 
εἰς τὸν κόσμον, καὶ διῆλθε διὰ πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας καὶ κυριότητος καί παντὸς 
ὀνόματος ὀνομαζομένου, καιτιλ. Hippolytus, Refut. Omn. Heer., vii. 25. 

5 Ἤλθεν οὖν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον πρῶτον ἀπὸ τῆς υἱότητος, φησί, διὰ τοῦ παρακα- 
θημένου τῷ ἄρχοντι υἱοῦ πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα, καὶ ἔμαθεν ὁ ἄρχων, ὅτι οὐκ ἦν θεὸς 
τῶν ὅλων, ἀλλ᾽ ἦν γεννητὸς, κιτιλ. Ib., vii. 26; cf. 27, &e. 

56 Ἐῤαγγέλιον ἐστὶ κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἡ τῶν ὑπερκοσμίων γνῶσις, κιτιλ. Ib., γῇ. 27. 


BASILIDES. 47 


very intelligible, but it is sufficient te show that “the 
Gospel” in a technical sense? formed a very important 
part of the system of Basilides. Now there is nothing 
whatever to show that the twenty-four books which he 
composed ‘on the Gospel” were not in elucidation of 
the Gospel as technically understood by him, illustrated 
by extracts from his own special Gospel and from the 
tradition handed down: to him by Glaucias and Matthias. 

The emphatic assertion of Canon Westcott and Basi- — 
lides, “admitted the historic truth of all the’ facts con- 
tained in the canonical Gospels,” is based solely upon 
the following sentence of the work attributed to Hippo- 
lytus. “ Jesus, however, was generated according to these 
(followers of Basilides) as we have already said.? But 
when the generation which has already been declared had 
taken place, all things regarding the Saviour, according 
to them, occurred in a similar way as they have been 
written in the Gospel.”* There are, however, several 
important points to be borne in mind in reference to this 
passage. ‘The statement in question is not made im con- 
nection with Basilides himself, but. distinctly in reference 
to his followers, of whom there were many in the time 
of Hippolytus and long after him. It is, moreover, a 
general observation the accuracy of which we have no 
means of testing, and upon the correctness of which 
there is no special reason to rely. The remark, made at 
the beginning of the third century, however, that. the 
followers of Basilides believed that the actual events of 
the life of Jesus occurred in the way in which they have 


1 Canon Westcott admits this technical use of the word, of course. On 
the Canon, p. 255 f., note 4. 

2 He refers to a mystical account of the incarnation. 

3 Ὃ δὲ Ἰησοῦς γεγένηται κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς ὡς προειρήκαμεν. Τεγενημένης δὲ τῆς 
γενέσεως τῆς προδεδηλωμένης, γέγονε πάντα ὁμοίως Kar αὐτοὺς τὰ περὶ τοῦ 
σωτῆρος ὡς ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις γέγραπται. LHippolytus, Ref. Omn, Ηῶν,, 
vii. 27. 


48 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


been written in the Gospels, is no proof whatever that 
either they or Basilides used or admitted the authority 
of our Gospels. The exclusive use by any one of the 
Gospel according to the Hebrews, for instance, would be 
perfectly consistent with the statement. No one who 
considers what is known of that Gospel, or who thinks 
of the use made of it in the first half of the second 
century by perfectly orthodox Fathers before we hear 
anything of our Gospels, can doubt this. The passage 
is, therefore, of no weight as evidence for the use 
of our Gospels. Canon Westcott is himself obliged to 
admit that in the extant fragments of Isidorus, the son 
and disciple of Basilides, who “ maintained the doctrines 
of his father,” he has “ noticed nothing bearing on the 
books of the New Testament.”? On the supposition that 
Basilides actually wrote a Commentary on our Gospels, 
and used them as Scripture, it is indeed passing strange 
that we have so little evidence on the point. 

We must now, however, examine in detail all of the 
quotations, and they are few, alleged to show the use of 
our Gospels, and we shall commence with those of 
Tischendorf. The first passage which he points out is 
found in the Stromata of Clement of Alexandria. Tisch- 
endorf guards himself, in reference to these quotations, 
by merely speaking of them as “ Basilidian” (Basili- 
dianisch),? but it might have been more frank to have 
stated clearly that Clement distinctly assigns the quota- 
tion to the followers of Basilides (ot δὲ ἀπὸ Βασιλείδου),ὃ 
and not to Basilides himself.* The supposed quotation, 
therefore, however surely traced to our Gospels, could 
really not prove anything in regard to Basilides. The 


1 On the Canon, p. 257. 3 ‘Wann wurden, u.s. w., p. 51. 

8. Of δὲ ἀπὸ Βασιλείδου πυθομένων φασὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων μή ποτε ἄμεινόν ἐστι 
τὸ μὴ γαμεῖν ἀποκρίνασθαι λέγουσι τὸν κύριον, καιτιλ. Strom., ili. 1, § 1. 

4 Canon Westcott does not refer to this quotation at all. 


BASILIDES. 


49 


passage itself compared with the parallel in Matt. xix. 


11, 12, is as follows :-— 


Srrom. m1. 1, § 1. 
They say the Lord answered: 
All men cannot receive this saying. 


For there are cunuchs who are | 
indeed from birth, but others from 
necessity. 


Od πάντες χωροῦσι τὸν λόγον τοῦτον, 
εἰσὶ γὰρ εὐνοῦχοι, οἱ μὲν ἐκ γενετῆς, οἱ 
δὲ ἐξ ἀνάγκης. 





Marv. xrx. 11, 12. 

y. 11. But he said unto them: 
All men cannot receive this saying 
but only they to whom it is given. 

vy. 12. For there are eunuchs 
which were so born from their 
mother’s womb: and there are 
eunuchs which were made eunuchs 
by men, ἕο. &e. 

Οὐ πάντες χωροῦσιν τὸν λόγον τοῦτον, 
ἀλλ᾽ οἷς δέδοται. εἰσὶν γὰρ εὐνοῦχοι 

a > , A ᾿ ’ 
οἵτινες ἐκ κοιλίας μητρὸς ἐγεννήθησαν 
οὕτως, καὶ εἰσὶν εὐνοῦχοι οἵτινες εὐνου- 
, δ cal > , 
χίσθησαν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, k.T.d. 


Now this passage in its affinity to and material varia- 
tion,from our first Gospel might be quoted as evidence 
for the use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, but it 
is simply preposterous to point to it as evidence for the 
use of Matthew. Apologists in their anxiety to grasp 
at the faintest analogies as testimony seem altogether to 
ignore the history of the creation of written Gospels, and 
to forget the very existence of the πολλοὶ of Luke.’ 

The next passage referred to by 'Tischendorf? is one 
quoted by Epiphanius* which we subjoin in eontrast 
with the parallel in Matt. vii. 6 :— 

HAR. ΧΧΤΙΥ͂. 5. 

And therefore he said : 

Cast not ye pearls before swine, 


neither give that which is holy 
unto dogs. 


MATT. VI. 6. 


dogs, neither cast ye your pearls 
before swine, lest they trample 
them under their feet, and turn 
again and rend you. 

Μὴ δῶτε τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς κυσίν, μηδὲ 
βάλητε τοὺς μαργαρίτας ὑμῶν ἔμπροσ - 
\ θεν τῶν χοίρων, K.T.A. 


| Give not that which is holy unto 
| 





Μὴ βάλητε τοὺς μαργαρίτας ἔμπροσ - 
θεν τῶν χοίρων, μηδὲ δότε τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς 





, 
κυσι. 


1 Cf. Ewald, Jahrb. bibl, Wiss., 1849, p. 208. 
5 Wann wurden, τι. 8. W,, ἢν 51. 3 Heer., xxiv. 5, p. 72. 
you, It, E 


50 SUPERNATURAL. RELIGION. 


Here again the variation in order is just what one 
might have expected from the use of the Gospel accord- 
ing to the Hebrews or a similar work, and there is no 
indication whatever that the passage did not end here, 
without the continuation of our first Synoptic. What is 
still more important, although Tischendorf does not 
mention the fact, nor otherwise hint a doubt than by the 
use again of an unexplained description of this quotation 
as “ Basilidianisch ” instead of a more direct ascription of 
_ it to Basilides himself, this passage is by no means 
attributed by Epiphanius to that heretic. It is intro- 
duced into the section of his work directed against the 
Basilidians, but he uses, like Clement, the indefinite 
φησί, and as in dealing with all these heresies there is 
continual interchange of reference to the head and the 
later followers, there is no certainty who is referred to in 
these quotations, and in this instance nothing to indicate 
that this passage is ascribed to Basilides himself. His 
name is mentioned in the first line of the first chapter of 
this “heresy,” but not again before this φησί occurs 
in chapter vy. Tischendorf does not claim any other 
quotations. 

Canon Westcott states: “In the few pages of his 
(Basilides’) writings which remain there are certain 
references to the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Luke,”? &e. 
One might suppose from this that the “certain” 
references occurred in actual extracts made from his 
works, and that the quotations therefore appeared set in 
a context of his own words, This impression is 
strengthened when we read as an introduction to the 
instances : “The following examples will be sufficient to 
show his method of quotation.” 55 The fact is, however, 


* On the Canon, p. 256: 3. Ib., p. 256, note 3. 


BASILIDES. 51 


that these examples are found in the work of Hippolytus, 
in an epitome of the views of the school by that writer 
himself, with nothing more definite than a subjectless 
φησί to indicate who is referred to. The only examples 
Canon Westcott can give of these “certain references” 
to our first and third Synopties, do not show his 
“method of quotation” to much advantage. The first 
is not a quotation at all, but a mere reference to the 
Magi and the Star. “But that each thing, he says 
(φησί), has its own times, sufficient the Saviour when 
he says: . . . and the Magi discerning the star,”? 
ἄς, This of course Canon Westcott considers a reference 
to Matt. ii. 1, 2, but we need scarcely point out that this 
falls to the ground instantly, if it be admitted, as it must 
be, that the Star and the Magi may have been mentioned 
in other Gospels than the first Synoptic. We have already 
seen, when examining the evidence of Justin, that this 
is the case. The only quotation asserted to be taken from 
Luke is the phrase: “The Holy Spirit shall come upon 
thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow 
thee,”? which agrees with Luke i. 35. This again is 
introduced by Hippolytus with another subjectless “ he 
says,” and apart from the uncertainty as to who “he” is, 
this is very unsatisfactory evidence as to the form of the 
quotation in the original text, for it may easily have 
been corrected by Hippolytus, consciously or uncon- 
sciously, in the course of transfer to his pages. We have 
already met with this passage as quoted by Justin from 
a Gospel different from ours, and this again would lead 
us to the Gospel according to the Hebrews. 


1 "Ori de, φησίν, ἕκαστον ἰδίους ἔχει καιρούς, ἱκανὸς 6 σωτὴρ λέγων". . . . Kal 
οἱ μάγοι τὸν ἀστέρα τεθεαμένο.. Hippolytus, Ref. Omn. Heer., vii. 27. 
2 Τινεῦμα ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σέ, καὶ δύναμις ὑψίστου ἐπισκιάσει σοι. 
Hippolytus, Ref, Omn, Heer., vii. 26, 
EQ 


52 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


As we have already stated, however, none of the 
quotations which we have considered are directly referred 
to Basilides himself, but they are all introduced by the 
utterly vague expression, “he says,” (φησί) without any 
subject accompanying the verb. Now it is admitted 
that writers of the time of Hippolytus, and notably 
Hippolytus himself, made use of the name of the founder 
of a sect to represent the whole of his school, and applied 
to him, apparently, quotations taken from unknown and 
later followers.!| The passages which he cites, therefore, 
and which appear to indicate the use of Gospels, instead 
of being extracted from the works of the founder himself, 
in all probability were taken from writings of Gnostics 
of his own time. Canon Westcott himself admits the 
possibility of this, in writing of other carly heretics. 
He says: “The evidence that has been collected from 
the documents of these primitive sects is necessarily 
somewhat vague. It would be more satisfactory to 
know the exact position of their authors, and the precise 
date of their being composed. It is just possible that 
Hippolytus made use of writings which were current in 
his own time without further examination, and trans- 
ferred to the apostolic age forms of thought and 
expression which had been the growth of two, or even of 
three generations.”? So much as to the reliance to be 
placed on the work ascribed to Hippolytus. It is 
certain, for instance, that in writing of the sect of 

1 Zeller, Theol. Jahrb., 1853, p. 148 ff.; Die Apostelgesch., p. 63 ἢ ; 
Volkmar, Theol. Jahrb., 1854, p. 108 ff.; Hippolytus, u. d. rém. Zeit- 
genossen, 1855, p. 167 ; Der Ursprung, p. 70 f.; Scholten, Die alt, Zeug- 
nisse, p. 65 f.; Das Ey. n. Johan., p. 427; Rump/, Rev. de Théol., 1867, 
p- 17 ff.; Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii. p. 388 ff.; Hilgenfeld, Die Evan- 
gelien, p. 345 f., anm. 5; Reuss, Gesch. N. T., p. 287; J. J. Tayler, The 


Fourth Gospel, 1867, p. 57. 
? On the Canon, p, 252 


BASILIDES. 58 


Naaseni and Ophites, Hippolytus perpetually quotes 
passages from the writings of the school, with the 
indefinite φησί," as he likewise does in dealing with the 
Peratici,? and Docete,* no individual author being 
named ; yet he evidently quotes various writers, passing 
from one to another without explanation, and making 
use of the same unvarying φησί. In one place,* where 
he has “the Greeks say,” (φασὶν of Ἕλληνες) he gives, 
without further indication, a quotation from Pindar.® A 
still more apt instance of his method is that pointed out 
by Volkmar,® where Hippolytus, writing of “ Marcion, or 
some one of his hounds,” uses, without further explana- 
tion, the subjectless φησί to introduce matter from the 
later followers of Marcion.? Now, with regard to 
Basilides, Hippolytus directly refers not only to the 
heretic chief, but also to his disciple Isidorus and all 
their followers,’ (καὶ "Ioidwpos καὶ πᾶς ὁ τούτων χορὸς) 
and then proceeds to use the indefinite “he says,” 
interspersed with references in the plural to these 
heretics, exhibiting the same careless method of quota- 
tion, and leaving the same complete uncertainty as to 
the speaker's identity as in the other cases mentioned.® 
On the other hand, it has been demonstrated by 


1 Hippolytus, Ref. Omn. Heer., v. 6 ff. 

#20550, 36, 13. 3 Jb., viii. 9, 10. * 16.,.¥, 7 

> Hippol., Ref. Omn. Heer. ed. Duncker et Schneidewin not. in loc., 
p. 134 ; Scholten, Die tilt. Zeugnisse, Ρ. 65 f. ; Zeller, Theol. Jahrb., 1893, 
Ρ. 149 f.; Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii. p. 389. 

ὁ Theol. Jahrb., 1854, p. 108 ff. ; Der Ursprung, p. 70. 

7 Hippolytus, Ref, Omn. Heer., vii. 30; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, 
p. 66. 

8 Hippolytus, ib., vii. 20; οἵ, 22. 

9. Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 65; Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 71 f., 
anm.; Theol, Jahrb., 1854, p. 108 ἢ; Rwmp/, Rev. de Théol., 1867, 
p. 18 f.; Davidson, Introd, N. T., ii. p. 883; Zeller, Theol. Jahrb., 1853, 
p-. 148 ff. 


54 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


Hilgenfeld, that the gnosticism ascribed to Basilides by 
Hippolytus, in connection with these quotations, is of a 
much later and more developed type than that which 
Basilides himself held,’ as shown in the actual fragments 
of his own writings which are still extant, and as 
reported by Irenzeus,? Clement of Alexandria,* and the 
work “ Adversus omnes MHeereses,” annexed to the 
 Preescriptio heereticorum” of Tertullian, which is 
considered to be the epitome of an earlier work of 
Hippolytus. The fact probably is that Hippolytus derived 
his views of the doctrines of Basilides from the writings of 
his later followers, and from them made the quotations 
which are attributed to the founder of the school.4 In any 
case there is no ground for referring these quotations 
with an indefinite φησί to Basilides himself. 

Of all this there is not a word from Canon Westcott,® 
but he ventures to speak of “ the testimony of Basilides to 
our ‘acknowledged’ books,” as “comprehensive and cleav.”® 
We have seen, however, that the passages referred to 
have no weight whatever as evidence for the use of our 

1 Hilgenfeld, Theol. Jahrb., 1856, p. 86 ff, 786 ff; Die jiid. Apok., 
1857, p. 287 ff.; Zeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1862, p. 452 ff. ; Volkmar, Hip- 
polytus u. ἃ. rém. Zeitgenossen, p. 167; ZAeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1860, 
p. 295 ff.; Der Ursprung, p. 70; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p, 66; Lipsius, 
Der Gnosticismus. Ersch. u. Gruber’s Allg. Encyclop., 1, sect. 71, 
1860, p. 90, 152; Guericke, Ἢ ποι K. G., i. p. 184; Zundert, Zeitschr. 
luth. Theol., 1855, h. 2, 1856, h. 1, 3. The following differ from the 
view taken by Hilgenfeld: Bawr, Die chr. Kirche 3 erst. Jahrh., p. 187f.; 
Theol. Jahrb., 1856, p. 121 ff.; Bunsen, Hippolytus u. 5. Zeit., 1852, 
1. p. 65 ff.; Jacobi, Basilides Phil. Gnost. ex. Hyppolyti lib. nuper 
reperto illustr., 1852; Uhihorn, Das Basilidianische System, τι. s. w., 
1855. ! : 

2 Ady. Heer., i. 24. ὃ Stromata, vi. 3. 
4 Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 66; Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 69 ff. ; 
Rumpf, Rey. de Théol., 1867, p. 18 ff.; Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii. 
p. 388 ff.; Zeller, Apostelgesch., p. 65f.; Theol. Jahrb., 1853, p. 148 ff. 


5 And very little from Tischendorf. 
6 On the Canon, p. 256. 


VALENTINUS, 55 


Synoptics. The formule (as τὸ εἰρημένον to that com- 
pared with Luke i. 35, and ὡς γέγραπται, ἡ γραφή 
with references compared with some of the Epistles) 
which accompany these quotations, and to which Canon 
Westcott points as an indication that the New Testament 
writings were already recognized as Holy Scripture,’ 
need no special attention, because, as it cannot be shown 
that the expressions were used by Basilides himself at 
all, they do not come into question. If anything, how- 
ever, were required to complete the evidence that these 
quotations are not from the works of Basilides himself, 
but from later writings by his followers, it would be the 
use of such formule, for as the writings of pseudo- 
Tonatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Papias, Hegesippus, 
and others of the Fathers in several ways positively 
demonstrate, the New Testament writings were not 
admitted, even amongst orthodox Fathers, to the rank of 
Holy Scripture, until a very much later period.’ 


2. 


Much of what has been said with regard to the claim 
which is laid to Basilides, by some apologists, as a 
witness for the Gospels and the existence of a New 
Testament Canon, and the manner in which that claim 
is advanced, likewise applies to Valentinus, another 
Gnostic leader, who, about the year 140, came from 
Alexandria to Rome and flourished till about A.p, 160.3 


* On the Canon, p. 26. 

2 Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 69; Zeller, Die Apostelgesch., p. 65, 
anm. 3; Theol. Jahrb., 1853, p. 148. 

3 Trenwus, Ady. Her., iii. 4,§ 3; Eusebius, H. E., iy. 11; Baur, Gesch. 
chr. Kirche, i. p. 196; Anger, Synops. Ev. Proleg., p. xxxv. ; Bleek, Einl. 
N. T., p- 227; Credner, Beitriige, i. p. 38 ; Davidson, Introd. N. T., ἢ, 


56 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


Very little remains of the writings of this Gnostic, and 
we gain our only knowledge of them from a few short 
quotations in the works of Clement of Alexandria, and 
some doubtful fragments preserved by others. We shall 
presently have occasion to refer more directly to these, 
and need not here more particularly mention them. 
Tischendorf, the self-constituted modern Defensor fidei,' 
asserts, with an assurance which can scarcely be cha- 
racterized otherwise than as an unpardonable calculation 
upon the ignorance of his readers, that’ Valentinus used 
the whole of our four Canonical Gospels. To do him full 
justice, we shall as much as possible give bis own words ; 
and, although we set aside systematically all discussion 
regarding the fourth Gospel for separate treatment here- 
after, we must, in order to convey the full sense of Dr. 
Tischendorf’s proceeding, commence with a sentence 
regarding that Gospel. Referrmg to a statement of 
Ivenzeus, that the followers of Valentinus made use of 
the fourth Gospel, Tischendorf continues: “ Hippolytus 
confirms and completes the statement of Irenzeus, for he 
quotes several expressions of John, which Valentinus 
employed. This occurs in the clearest way, in the case 
of John. x. 8; for Hippolytus writes: ‘ Because the 
prophets and the law, according to the doctrine of 
Valentinus, were only filled with a subordinate aud 
foolish spirit, Valentinus says: On account of this, the 
Saviour says: All who came before me are thieves and 
robbers.’ ”? Now this, to begin with, is a deliberate 


Ρ. 390; Guericke, Hbuch K. G., i. p. 184; Scholten, Die ilt. Zeugnisse, 
p. 67; Reuss, Gesch. N. T., p. 243; Tischendorf, Wann wurden, u. 5. w., 
p. 43; JWestcott, On the Canon, p. 258 f. 

1 Hilgenfeld, Zeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1865, p, 329. 

? Die Angabe des Ireniius bestarkt und vervolistandigt Hippolytus, 
denn er fiihrt einzelne Johanneische Ausspriiche an, welche Valentin 


VALENTINUS. 57 


falsification of the text of the Philosophumena, which 
reads : “Therefore all the Prophets and the Law have 
spoken by reason of the Demiurge, a foolish God, he 
says, (they themselves being) foolish, knowing nothing. 
On this account, he says, the Saviour saith: All who 
came before me,” ἄς. &c.1. There is no mention what- 
ever of the name of Valentinus in the passage, and, 
us we shall presently show, there is no direct reference 
in the whole chapter to Valentinus himself. The intro- 
duction of his name in this manner into the text, without 
a word of explanation, is highly reprehensible. It is true 
that in a note Tischendorf gives a closer translation of 
the passage, without, however, any explanation ; and here 
again he adds, in parenthesis to the “says he,” “namely, 
Valentinus.” Such a note, however, which would 
probably be unread by a majority of readers, does not 
rectify the impression conveyed by so positive and 
emphatic an assertion as is conveyed by the alteration 
in the text, 

Tischendorf continues: “And as the Gospel of John, 
so also were, the other Gospels used by Valentinus. 
According to the statement of Irenzeus (I. 7, § 4), he 
found the said subordinate spirit, which he calls Demiurge, 
Masterworker,emblematically represented by the Centurion 
of Capernaum (Matt. viii. 9, Luke vii. 8); in the dead 
and resuscitated twelve years old daughter of Jairus 


benutzt hat. Am deutlichsten geschieht dies mit Joh. x. 8; denn ΠῚρ- 
polytus schreibt: Weil die Propheten und das Gesetz, nach Valentins 
Lehre, nur yon einem untergeordneten und thérichten Geiste erfiilt waren, 
so sagt Valentin: Eben deshalb spricht der Erléser: Alle die yor mir 
gekommen sind, sind Diebe und Mérder gewesen.” Wann wurden, τι. 5. w., 
Ῥ. 44. : 

' Πάντες οὖν οἱ προφῆται καὶ ὁ νόμος ἐλάλησαν ἀπὸ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ, μωροῦ 
λέγει θεοῦ, μωροὶ οὐδὲν εἰδότες. Διὰ τοῦτο, φησί, λέγει ὁ σωτήρ᾽ Πάντες, Kr. 


LTippolytus, Ref. Omn. Heer., vi. 35. 


58 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


/ 


(Luke viii. 41), he recognized a symbol of his ‘ Wisdom’ 
(Achamoth), the mother of the Masterworker (I. 8, § 2); 
in like manner, he saw represented in the history of the 
woman who had suffered twelve years from the bloody 
issue, and was cured by the Lord (Matt. ix. 20), the 
sufferings and salvation of his twelfth primitive 
spirit (Aeon) (I. 3, § 3); the expression of the Lord 
(Matt. v. 18) on the numerical value of the iota (‘the 
smallest letter’) he applied to his ten zeons in repose.” ! 
Now, in every instance where Tischendorf here speaks 
of Valentinus by the singular “he,” Jrenzeus uses the 
plural “they,” referring not to the original founder of 
the sect, but to his followers in his own day, and the 
text is thus again in every instance falsified by the pious 
zeal of the apologist. In the case of the Centurion : 
“they say” (λέγουσι) that he is the Demiurge ;? “ they 
declare” (διηγοῦνται) that the daughter of Jairus is the 
type of Achamoth ;? “they say” (λέγουσι) that the 
apostasy of Judas points to the passion in connection with 
the twelfth zon, and also the fact that Jesus suffered in 
the twelfth month after his baptism ; for they will have 
it (βούλονται) that he only preached for one year. The 
case of the woman with the bloody issue for twelve years, 
and the power which went forth from the Son to heal 
her, “they will have to be Horos” (εἶναι δὲ ταύτης τὸν 
Ὅρον θελουσιν) In like manner they assert that the 
ten sons are indicated (σημαίνεσθαι λέγουσι) by the 
letter “Iota,” mentioned in the Saviour’s expression, 
Matt. v. 18.5 At the end of these and numerous other — 
similar references in this chapter to New Testament 


1 Wann wurden, τι. 5. w., p. 44 f. 
2 Jreneus, Ady. Heer., i. 7, § 4. ἘΠῚ 1. 9.8 3 
3 Τῦ,, i. 8, § 2. B70, Ie Os eA 


VALENTINUS. 59 


expressions and passages, Irenzeus says: “Thus they 
interpret,” &c. (ἑρμηνεύουσιν εἰρῆσθαι). The plural 
“they ” is employed throughout. 

Tischendorf proceeds to give the answer to his state- 
ment which is supposed to be made by objectors. “They 
say: all that has reference to the Gospel of John was 
not advanced by Valentinus himself, but first by his 
disciples. And in fact, in Irenzeus, ‘they—the Valen- 
tinians—say,’ occurs much oftener than ‘he—Valentinus 
—says.’ But who is there so sapient as to draw the line 
between what the master alone says, and that which the 
disciples state without in the least repeating the 
master ?”? ‘'Tischendorf solves the difficulty by referring 
everything indiscriminately to the master. Now, in reply 
to these observations, we must remark in the first place 
that the admission here made by Tischendorf, that 
Trenzeus much more often uses “ they say” than “he 
says ” is still quite disingenuous, inasmuch as invariably, 
and without exception, Ireneeus uses the plural in con- 
nection with the texts in question. Secondly, it is quite 
preposterous to argue that a Gnostic, writing about A.p. 
185—195, was not likely to use arguments which were 
never thought of by a Gnostic, writing at the middle of 
the second century. At the end of the century, the 
writings of the New Testament had acquired considera- 
tion and authority, and Gnostic writers had therefore a 
reason to refer to them, and to endeavour to show that 
they supported their peculiar views, which did not exist 
at all at the time when Valentinus propounded his 
system. ‘Tischendorf, however, cannot be allowed the 
benefit even of such a doubt as he insinuates, as to what 
belongs to the master; and what to the followers. Such 


1 Treneus, Ady. Heer., i. 3, ὃ 4. 2 Wann wurden, u. 8. W., ἢ. 45. 


60 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


doubtful testimony could not establish anything, but it is 
in point of fact also totally excluded by the statement of 
Irenzeus himself. 

In the preface to the first book of his great work, 
Trenzeus clearly states the motives and objects for which 
he writes. He says: “I have considered it necessary, 
having read the commentaries (ὑπομνήμασι) of the 
disciples of Valentinus, as they call themselves, and 
having by personal intercourse with some of them 
apprehended their opinions, to unfold to thee,” &c., and 
he goes on to say that he intends to set forth “the 
opinions of those who are now teaching heresy ; I speak 
particularly of those round Ptolemzeus, whose system is 
an off-shoot of the school of Valentinus.”’ Nothing 
could be more explicit than this statement that Irenzeus © 
neither intended nor pretended to write upon the works 
of Valentinus himself, but upon the commentaries of his 
followers of his own time, with some of whom he had 
had personal intercourse, and that the system which he 
intended to attack was that actually being taught in his 
day by Ptolemzeus and his school, the off-shoot from 
Valentinus. All the quotations to which Tischendorf 
refers are made within a few pages of this explicit 
declaration. Immediately after the passage about the 
Centurion, he says: “such is their system” (τοιαύτης 
δὲ τῆς ὑποθέσεως αὐτῶν οὔσης), and three lines below. 
he states that they derive their views from unwritten 


sources (ἐξ ἀγράφων ἀναγινώσκοντες). The first direct 
1... ἀναγκαῖον ἡγησάμην, ἐντυχὼν τοῖς ὑπομνήμασι τῶν, ὡς αὐτοὶ λέγουσιν, 
Οὐαλεντίνου μαθητῶν, ἐνίοις δὲ αὐτῶν καὶ συμβαλὼν, καὶ καταλαβόμενος τὴν 
γνώμην αὐτῶν, μηνυσαὶ σοι, κιτιλ.... τὴν τε γνώμην αὐτῶν τῶν νῦν παραδι- 
δασκόντων, λέγω δὴ τῶν περὶ Πτολεμαῖον, ἀπάνθισμα οὖσαν τῆς Οὐαλεντίνου 
σχολῆς, καὶ. Trenceus, Ady. Her. Preef., i. § 2. 
2 1b., Ady. Hzer., i. 8, § 1. 


VALENTINUS. ᾿ 61 


reference to Valentinus does not occur until after these 
quotations, and is for the purpose of showing the 
variation of opinion of his followers. He says: “ Let us 
now see the uncertain opinions of these heretics, for 
there are two or three of them, how they do not speak 
alike of the same things, but set forth differently, both 
statements and names.” Then he continues: “The first 
of the Gnostic heresy, who adapted ancient doctrines to 
his characteristic teaching, Valentinus, thus defined,” &c., 
ἄς And after a brief description of his system, in 
which no Scriptural allusion occurs, he goes on to 
compare the views of the rest, and in chap. xii. he returns 
to Ptolemeeus and his followers (Ὁ Πτολεμαῖος, καὶ of 
σὺν αὐτῷ, K.T.d.). 

In the preface to Book 11., he again says that he has 
been exposing the falsity of the followers of Valentinus 
(qui sunt a Valentino) and will proceed to establish what 
he has advanced ; and everywhere he uses the plural 
“ they,” with occasional direct references to the followers 
of Valentinus (qui sunt a Valentino).?_ The same course 
is adopted in Book ii, the plural being systematically 
used, and the same distinct definition introduced at 
intervals? And again, in the preface to Book iv. he 
recapitulates that the preceding books had been written 
against these, “qui sunt a Valentino” (§ 2). In fact, it 
would almost be impossible for any writer more fre- 


1 Ἴδωμεν viv καὶ τὴν τούτων ἄστατον γνώμην, δύο που καὶ τριῶν ὄντων, πῶς 
περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν οὐ τὰ αὐτὰ λέγουσιν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς πράγμασι καὶ τοῖς ὀνόμασιν 
ἐναντία ἀποφαίνονται. “O μὲν γὰρ πρῶτος ἀπὸ τῆς λεγομένης Τνωστικῆς αἱρέσεως 
τὰς ἀρχὰς εἰς ἴδιον χαρακτῆρα διδασκαλείου μεθαρμόσας Οὐαλεντῖνος, οὕτως 
ἐξηροφόρησεν, κιτιλ. Lrenwus, Ady. Heer., i. 11, § 1. 

2 As, for instance, ii. 16, § 4. 

3 For instance, ‘“‘Secundum autem eos qui sunt a Valentino,” iii. 11, 
§ 2. “Secundum autem illos,” ὃ 3; ‘‘ab omnibus illos,” ὃ 3. ‘Hi autem 
qui sunt a Valentino,” &c., § 7, 7b. καὶ 9, &e. Ke. 


62 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


quently and emphatically to show that he is not, as he 
began by declaring, dealing with the founder of the school 
himself, but with his followers living and teaching at the 
time at which he wrote. 

Canon Westcott, with whose system of positively 
enunciating unsupported and controverted statements 
we are already acquainted, is only slightly outstripped 
by the German apologist in his misrepresentation of the 
evidence of Valentinus. It must be stated, however, 
that, acknowledging, as no doubt he does, that Irenzeus 
never refers to Valentinus himself, Canon Westcott passes 
over in complete silence the supposed references upon 
which Tischendorf relies as his only evidence for the use 
of the Synoptics by that Gnostic. He, however, makes 
the following extraordiary statement regarding Valen- 
tinus: “The fragments of his writings which remain 
show the same natural and trustful use of Scripture as 
other Christian works of the same period ; and there is 
no diversity of character in this respect between the 
quotations given in Hippolytus and those found in 
Clement of Alexandria. He cites the Epistle to the 
Ephesians as ‘ Scripture,’ and refers clearly to the Gospels 
of St. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. John, to the Epistles 
to the Romans,”? &e. 

We shall now give the passages which he points out 
in support of these assertions.? The first two are said to 
occur in the Stromata of the Alexandrian Clement, who 
professes to quote the very words of a letter of Valen- 
tinus to certain people regarding the passions, which are 
called by the followers of Basilides “the appendages of 
the soul.” The passage is as follows: “ But one is good, 


1 On the Canon, p. 259 f. 
2 Ib., p. 260, note 2, 


VALENTINUS., 63 


whose advent is through the manifestation of the Son, 
and by whose power alone the heart can become pure, | 
every spirit of evil being expelled from the heart, For 
the number of spirits dwelling in it do not allow it to be 
pure, but each of them performs its own works, often 
insulting it with unseemly lusts, And the heart appears 
to be treated like an inn, For such a place has both 
rents and holes made in it, and is frequently filled 
with ordure, men abiding brutally in it, and haying no 
thought for the place even as established for others. 
And in such wise fares the heart, while without thought, 
being impure, and the dwelling-place of many demons, 
but so soon as the alone good Father visits it, it is 
sanctified and flashes through with light, and the pos- 
sessor of such a heart is blessed, for he shall see God.” } 
According to Canon Westcott this passage contains two 
of the “clear references” to our Gospels upon which 
he bases his statement, namely to Matt. v. 8, and to 
Matt. xix. 17. . ) 

Now it is clear that there is no actual quotation from 
any evangelical work in this passage from the Epistle 
of Valentinus, and the utmost for which the most 
zealous apologist could contend is, that there is a slight 
similarity with some words in the Gospel, and Canon 


1 Els δέ ἐστιν ἀγαθὸς, οὗ παῤῥησίᾳ (Grabe—Spicil. Patr. ii. p, 52—suggests 
παρουσίᾳ, Which we adopt.) ἡ διὰ τοῦ viod φανέρωσις, καὶ δι’ αὐτοῦ μόνου 
δύναιτο ἂν ἡ καρδία καθαρὰ γενέσθαι παντὸς πονηροῦ πνεύματος ἐξωθουμένου τῆς 
καρδίας. πολλὰ γὰρ ἐνοικοῦντα αὑτῇ πνεύματα οὐκ ἐᾷ καθαρεύειν, ἕκαστον δὲ 
αὑτῶν τὰ ἴδια ἐκτελεῖ ἔργα πολλαχῶς ἐνυβριζόντων ἐπιθυμίαις οὗ προσηκούσαις. 
καὶ μοι δοκεῖ ὅμοιόν τι πάσχειν τῷ πανδοχείῳ ἡ Kapdia: καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνο 
κατατιτρᾶταί τε καὶ ὀρύττεται καὶ πολλάκις κόπρου πίμπλαται ἀνθρώπων ἀσελγῶς 
ἐμμενόντων καὶ μηδὲ μίαν πρόνοιαν ποιουμένων τοῦ χωρίου, καθάπερ ἀλλοτρίου 
καθεστῶτος" τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον καὶ ἡ καρδία μέχρι μὴ προνοίας τυγχάνει, ἀκάθαρ-- 
tos οὖσα, πολλῶν οὖσα, δαιμόνων οἰκητήριον, ἐπειδὰν δὲ ἐπισκέψηται αὑτὴν ὁ 
μόνος ἀγαθὸς πατὴρ, ἡγίασται καὶ φωτὶ διαλάμπει, καὶ οὕτω μακαρίζεται ὁ ἔχων 
τὴν τοιαύτην καρδίαν, ὅτι ὄψεται τὸν θεόν. Clem. Al., Strom., ii. 20, § 114. 


64 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


Westcott himself does not venture to call them more 
than “references.” That such distant coincidences should 
be quoted as the only evidence for the use of the first 
Gospel shows how weak is his case. At best such vague 
references could not prove anything, but when the 
passages to which reference is supposed to be made are 
examined, it will be apparent that nothing could be more 
absurd or arbitrary than the claim of reference specially 
to our Gospel, to the exclusion of the other Gospels then 
existing, which to our knowledge contained both pas- 
sages. We may, indeed, go still further, and affirm 
that if these coincidences are references to any Gospel 
at all, that Gospel is not the canonical, but one different 
from it. 

The first reference alluded to consists of the following 
two phrases: “But one is good (εἷς δέ ἐστιν ἀγαθὸς). 
the alone good Father” (ὁ μόνος ἀγαθὸς 
πατὴρ). This is compared with Matt. xix. 17:1 “Why 
askest thou me concerning good? there is one that is 
good” (εἷς ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαθός). Now the passage in the 
epistle, if a reference to any parallel episode, such as 
Matt. xix. 17, indicates with certainty the reading: 
“One is good, the Father.” εἷς ἐστιν ἀγαθός 6 πατὴρ. 
There is no such reading in any of our Gospels. But 
although this reading does not exist in any of the 
Canonical Gospels, it is well known that it did exist in ~ 
uncanonical Gospels no longer extant, and that the 
passage was one upon which various sects of so-called 
heretics laid great stress. Jrenzeus quotes if as one of 


1 Westcott, On the Canon, p. 260, note 2. 
2 Mark x. 18, and Luke xvii. 18, are linguistically more distant. 
‘“Why callest thou me good? There is none good but God only.” οὐδεὶς 


- 
ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός, 


VALENTINUS. 65 


the texts to which the Marcosians, who made use of 
apocryphal Gospels,' and notably of the Gospel accord- 
ing to the Hebrews, gave a different colouring: εἷς ἐστιν 
ἀγαθὸς, 6 πατὴρ2 Epiphanius also quotes this reading 
as one of the variations of the Marcionites: εἷς ἐστιν 
ἀγαθὸς, ὁ θεός, ὃ πατὴρ) Origen, likewise, remarks that 
this passage is misused by some Heretics: “ Velut 
proprie sibi datum scutum putant (heeretici) quod dixit 
Dominus in Evangelio: Nemo bonus nisi unus Deus 
pater.”* Justin Martyr quotes the same reading from a 
source different from our Gospels,® εἷς ἐστιν ἀγαθὸς 6 
πατήρ μου, «.7.d.,° and in agreement with the repeated 
similar readings of the Clementine Homilies, which 
likewise derived it from an extra canonical source,’ 
ὁ yap ἀγαθὸς εἷς ἐστιν, ὁ πατὴρ The use of a similar 
expression by Clement of Alexandria,® as well as by 
Origen, only serves to prove the existence of the reading 
in extinct Gospels, although it is not found in any MS, 
of any of our Gospels. 

The second of the supposed references is more diffuse : 
One is good by whose power alone’the heart can become 
pure (ἢ καρδία καθαρὰ γενέσθα) . . . but when 
the alone good Father visits it, it is sanctified and flashes 
through with light, and the possessor of such a heart is 
blessed, for he shall see God (καὶ οὕτω μακαρίζεται ὁ 
ἔχων τὴν τοιαύτην καρδίαν, ὅτι ὄψεται τὸν θεόν). This is 


1 Adv. Heer., i. 20, § 1. 3. 7b., i, 20, § 2. 

3 Epiphanius, Heer., xlii.; Schol. L. ed. Pet., p. 339. 

4 De Principiis, i. 2,§ 13; cf. de Orat., 15; Exhort.ad Mart., 7; Contra 
Cels., v. 11; cf. Griesbach,; Symb. Crit., ii. p. 305, 349, 388. 

5 Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. Justin’s, p. 220 ff.; Credner, Beitrage, i. 
p. 243 ff. § Apol., i. 16. 

7 Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. Justin’s, p. 362 f.; Credner, Beitrage, i. p. 321. 

® Hom., xviii. 1; 3. 

® οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς, εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ μου, και. Peodag.,i. 8, § 72, of. § τί; εἷς 
ἀγαθὸς ὁ πατὴρ. Strom., y. 10, § 64, 

VOL. II. F 


66 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


compared? with Matthew v. 8: “Blessed are the pure 
in heart, for they shall see God” (μακάριοι οἱ καθαροὶ τῇ 
καρδίᾳ, ὅτι αὐτοὶ τὸν θεὸν ὄψονται). It might be argued 
that this is quite as much a reference to Psalm xxiv. 3-6 
as to Matt. v. 8, but even if treated as a reference to 
the Sermon on the Mount, nothing is more certain than 
the fact that this discourse had its place in much older 
forms of the Gospel than our present Canonical Gospels,? 
and that it formed part of the Gospel according to the 
Hebrews and other evangelical writings in circulation in 
the early Church. Such a reference as this is absolutely 
worthless as evidence of special acquaintance with our 
first Synoptic.$ 

Tischendorf does not appeal at all to these supposed 
references contained in the passages preserved by 
Clement, but both the German, and the English apologist 
join in relying upon the testimony of Hippolytus,* with 
regard to the use of the Gospels by Valentinus, although 
it must be admitted that the former does so with greater 
fairness of treatment than Canon Westcott. Tischendorf 
does refer to, and admit, some of the difficulties of the 
case, as we shall presently see, whilst Canon Westcott, as 
in the case of Basilides, boldly makes his assertion, and 
totally ignores all adverse facts. The only Gospel 

1 Westcott, On the Canon, p. 260, note 2. 

2 Ewald assigns it to the Spruchsammlung. Die drei erst. Evv., p. 7. 

5. The supposed reference to the Ep. to the Romans 1. 20; cf. Clem.Al., 
Strom., iv. 13, ὃ 91, 92, is much more distant than either of the pre- 
ceding. It is not necessary for us to discuss it, but as Canon West- 
cott merely gives references to all of the passages without quoting any of 
the words, a good strong assertion becomes a powerful argument, since 
few readers have the means of verifying its correctness. 

4 By a misprint Canon Westcott ascribes all his references of Valen- 
tinus to the N. T., excapt three, to the extracts from his writings in the 


Stromata of Olement, although he should have indicated the work of 
Hippolytus. Cf. On the Canon, 1866, p. 260, note 2. 


VALENTINUS. 67 


reference which can be adduced even in the Philoso- 
phumena, exclusive of one asserted to be to the fourth 
Gospel, which will be separately considered hereafter, is 
advanced by Canon Westcott, for Tischendorf does not 
refer to it, but confines himself solely to the supposed 
reference to the fourth Gospel. The passage is the same 
as one also imputed to Basilides: ‘“‘The Holy Spirit 
shall come upon thee and the power of the Highest 
shall overshadow thee ;” which happens to agree with the 
words in Luke i. 35; but, as we have seen in connection 
with Justin, there is good reason for concluding that the 
narrative to which it belongs was contained in other 
Gospels. In this instance, however, the quotation is 
carried further and presents an important variation from 
the text of Luke. ‘The Holy Spirit shall come upon 
thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow 
thee ; therefore the thing begotten of thee shall be called 
holy”? (διὸ τὸ γεννώμενον ἐκ σοῦ ἅγιον κληθήσεται). The 
reading of Luke is: “Therefore also that holy thing 
which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of 
God” (διὸ καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον ἅγιον κληθήσεται υἷος θεοῦ). 
It is probable that the passage referred to in connection 
with the followers of Basilides may have ended in the 
same way as this, and been derived from the same source. 
Nothing, however, can be clearer than the fact that this 
quotation, by whoever made, is not taken from our third 
Synoptic, inasmuch as there does not exist a single MS. 
which contains such a passage. We again, however, 
come to the question: Who really made the quotations 
which Hippolytus introduces so indefinitely ? 

We have already, in speaking of Basilides, pointed out 


Cf. Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. Justin’s, p. 141 ff. 
? Hippolytus, Ady. Heer., vi. 35, 


68 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


the loose manner in which Hippolytus and other early 
writers, in dealing with different schools of heretics, 
indifferently quote the founder or his followers without 
indicating the precise person quoted. This practice is 
particularly apparent in the work of Hippolytus when 
the followers of Valentinus are in question. Tischendorf 
himself is obliged to admit this. He says: “ Even though 
it be also incontestable that the author (Hippolytus) does 
not always sharply distinguish between the sect and the 
founder of the sect, does this apply to the present 
case?” He denies that it does in the instance to which 
he refers, but he admits the general fact. In the same 
way another apologist of the fourth Gospel (and as the 
use of that Gospel is maintained in consequence of a 
quotation in the very same chapter as we are now con- 
sidering, only a few lines higher up, both third and 
fourth are in the same position) is forced to admit: 
‘“‘The use of the Gospel of John by Valentinus cannot 
so certainly be proved from our refutation-writing 
(the work of Hippolytus). Certainly in the statement 
of these doctrines it gives abstracts, which contain an 
expression of John (x. 8), and there cannot be any doubt 
that this is taken from some writing of the sect. But the 
apologist, in his expressions regarding the Valentinian 
doctrines, does not seem to confine himself to one 
and the same work, but to have alternately made use of 
different writings of the school, for which reason we 
cannot say anything as to the age of this quotation, and 
from this testimony, therefore, we merely have further 
confirmation that the Gospel was early? (7) used in the 


1 Wenn nun auch unbestreitbar ist, dass der Verfasser nicht immer 
streng zwischen der Sekte sondert und dem Urheber der Sekte, findet dies 
auf den vorliegenden Fall Anwendung? Wann wurden, τι. 5. w., p. 46. 

3 Why ‘‘early ”? since Hippolytus writes about A.D. 225. 


VALENTINUS. 69 


School of the Valentinians,”! &e. Of all this not a word 
from Canon Westcott, who adheres to his system of 
bare assertion. 

Now we have already quoted? the opening sentence 
of Book vi. 35, of the work ascribed to Hippolytus, in 
which the quotation from John x. 8, referred to above 
occurs, and ten lines further on, with another inter- 
mediate and equally indefinite “he says” (φησί), occurs 
the supposed quotation from Luke i. 35, which, equally 
with that from the fourth Gospel, must, according to 
Weizsiicker, be abandoned as a quotation which can 
fairly be ascribed to Valentinus himself, whose name is 
not once mentioned in the whole chapter. A few lines 
below the quotation, however, a passage occurs which 
throws much light upon the question. After explaining 
the views of the Valentinians regarding the verse: “The 
Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,” &c., the writer thus 
proceeds: “ Regarding this there is among them (αὐτοῖς ) 
a great question, a cause both of schism and dissension. 
And hence their (αὐτῶν) doctrine has become divided, 
and the one doctrine according to them (κατ᾽ αὐτούς) is 
called Eastern (ἀνατολική) and the other Italian. They 
from Italy, of whom is Heracleon and Ptolemeus, 
say (pact) that the body of Jesus was animal, and on 
account of this, on the occasion of the baptism, the Holy 
Spirit like a dove came down—that is, the Logos from 
the Mother above, Sophia—and became joined to the 
animal, and raised him from the dead. This, he says 
(φησῇ is the declaration (τὸ elpynpévov),”—and here 
be it observed we come to another of the “clear refer- 
ences” which Canon Westcott ventures, deliberately and 


1 Weizsacker, Unters. iib. ἃ. evang. Gesch., 1864, p. 234. 
? Vol. ii. p. 57, ““ Therefore all the Prophets,” &c. 


70 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


without a word of doubt, to attribute to Valentinus 
himself,—* This, he says, is the declaration: ‘He who 
raised Christ from the dead shall also quicken your 
mortal bodies, ? indeed animal. For the earth has 
come under a curse: ‘For dust, he says (φησῶ) thou art 
and unto dust shalt thou return.* On the other hand, 
those from the East (οἱ δ᾽ αὖ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀνατολῆς), of whom 
is Axionicus and Bardesanes, say (λέγουσιν) that the 
body of the Saviour was spiritual, for the Holy Spirit 
came upon Mary, that is the Sophia and the power of 
the Highest,”* &c. 

In this passage we have a good illustration of the 
mode in which the writer introduces his quotations with 
the subjectless “he says.” Here he is conveying the 
divergent opinions of the two parties of Valentinians, and 
explaining the peculiar doctrines of the Italian school 
“of whom is Heracleon and Ptolemzus,” and he sud- 
denly departs from the plural “they” to quote the 
passage from Romans viii. 11, in support of their views 
with the singular “he says.” Nothing can be more 
obvious than that “he” cannot possibly be Valentinus 
himself, for the schism is represented as taking place 


? On the Canon, p. 260. 

2 Cf. Rom. viii. 11. 3 Cf. Gen. iii. 19. 

* Περὶ τούτου ζήτησις μεγάλῃ ἐστὶν αὐτοῖς καὶ σχισμάτων καὶ διαφορᾶς ἀφορμή. 
Καὶ γέγονεν ἐντεῦθεν ἣ διδασκαλία αὐτῶν διηρημένη, καὶ καλεῖται ἡ μὲν ἀνατολική 
τις διδασκαλία κατ᾽ αὐτούς, ἡ δὲ ᾿Ιταλιωτικήῆ. Οἱ μὲν ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας, ὧν ἐστὶν 
Ἡρακλέων καὶ Πτολεμαῖος, ψυχικόν φασι τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ γεγονέναι, καὶ διὰ 
τοῦτο ἐπὶ τοῦ icparos τὸ πνεῦμα ὡς περιστερὰ κατελήλυθε, τουτέστιν 6 λόγος 
ὁ τῆς μητρὸς ἄνωθεν τῆς σοφίας, καὶ γέγονε τῷ ψυχικῷ, καὶ ἐγήγερκεν αὐτὸν ἐκ 
νεκρῶν. Τοῦτο ἐστί, φησί, τὸ εἰρημένον" ‘O ἐγείρας Χριστὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν, ζωοποιήσει 
καὶ τὰ θνητὰ σώματα ὑμῶν, ἤτοι ψυχικά. Ὃ χοῦς γὰρ ὑπὸ κατάραν ἐλήλυθε. 
Γῆ γὰρ, φησίν, εἶ, καὶ εἰς γῆν ἀπελεύσῃ. Οἱ δ᾽ αὖ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀνατολῆς λέγουσιν, ὧν 
ἐστὶν ᾿Αξιόνικος καὶ ᾿Αρδησιάνης, ὅτι πνευματικὸν ἦν τὸ σῶμα τοῦ σωτῆρος" 
πνεῦμα γὰρ ἅγιον ἦλθεν ἐπὶ τὴν Μαρίαν, τουτέστιν 4 σοφία, καὶ ἡ δύναμις τοῦ 
ὑψίστου, κατ. Hippolytus, Ref. Omn. Heer., vi. 35. 


VALENTINUS. 71 


amongst his followers, and the quotation is evidently 
made by one of them to support the views of bis 
party in the schism, but whether Hippolytus is quoting 
from Heracleon or Ptolemzeus or some other of the 
Italian’ school, there is no means of knowing. Of all 
this, again, nothing is said by Canon Westcott, who 
quietly asserts without hesitation or argument, that 
Valentinus himself is the person who here makes the 
quotation. 

We have already said that the name of Valentinus 
does not occur once in the whole chapter (vi. 35) which 
we have been examining, and if we turn back we find 
that the preceding context confirms the result at which 
we have arrived, that the φησί has no reference to the 
Founder himself, but is applicable only to some later 
member of his school, most probably contemporary with 
Hippolytus. In vi. 21, Hippolytus discusses the heresy 
of Valentinus, which he traces to Pythagoras and Plato, 
but in Ch. 29 he passes from direct reference to the 
Founder to deal entirely with his school. This is so 
manifest, that the learned editors of the work of Hip- 
polytus, Professors Duncker and Schneidewin, alter the 
preceding heading at that part from “ Valentinus” to 
“Valentiniani.” At the beginning of Ch. 29 Hip- 
polytus writes: ‘ Valentinus, therefore, and Heracleon 
and Ptolemzeus and the whole school of these (heretics) 

have laid down as the fundamental principle of 
their teaching the arithmetical system. For according 
to these,” &c. And a few lines lower down: “ There 
is discernible amongst them, however, considerable 
difference of opinion. For many of them, in order that 


' The quotation from an Epistle to the Romans by the Italian school is 
appropriate, 


72 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


the Pythagorean doctrine of Valentinus may be wholly 
pure, suppose, &c., but others,” &c. He shortly after 
says that he will proceed to state their doctrines as 
they themselves teach them (μνημονεύσαντες ὡς ἐκεῖνοι 
διδάσκουσιν ἐροῦμεν) He then continues: “There is, 
he says (dyat),” &c. &c., quoting evidently one of these 
followers who want to keep the doctrine of Valentinus 
pure, or of the “ others,” although without naming him, 
and three lines further on again, without any preparation, 
returning to the plural “they say” (λέγουσι) and so on 
through ‘the following chapters, “he says” alternating 
with the plural, as the author apparently has in view 
something said by individuals or merely expresses general 
views. In the Chapter (34) preceding that which we 
have principally been examining, Hippolytus begins by 
referring to “the Quaternion according to Valentinus,” 
but after five lines on it, he continues: “ These things 
are what they say: ταῦτά ἐστιν ἃ λέγουσιν," and then 
goes on to speak of “ their whole teaching” (τὴν πᾶσαν 
αὐτῶν διδασκαλίαν), and lower down he distinctly sets 
himself to discuss the opinions of the school in the 
plural: “Thus these (Valentinians) subdivide the 
contents of the Pleroma,” &c. (οὕτως οὗτοι, x.7.d.), and 
continues with an occasional “according to them” (κατ᾽ 
αὐτοὺς) until, without any name being mentioned, he 
makes use of the indefinite “he says” to introduce the 
quotation referred to by Canon Westcott as a citation by 
Valentinus himself of “the Epistle to the Ephesians as 
Scripture.”? “This is, he says, what is written in 
Scripture,” and there follows a quotation which, it may 
merely be mentioned as Canon Westcott says nothing of 
it, differs considerably from the passage in the Epistle 
1 vi. 84. 2 On the Canon, p. 260. 


VALENTINUS. 73 


iii, 14—18. Immediately after, another of Canon West- 
cott’s quotations from 1 Cor. ii. 14, is given, with the 
same indefinite “ he says,” and in the same way, without 
further mention of names, the quotations in Ch. 35 
compared with John x. 8, and Luke i. 35. There is, 
therefore, absolutely no ground whatever for referring 
these φησί to Valentinus himself; but, on the contrary, 
Hippolytus shows in the clearest way that he is dis- 
cussing the views of the later writers of the sect, and 
it is one of these, and not the Founder himself, whom in 
his usual indefinite way he thus quotes. of 

We have been forced by these bald and unsupported 
assertions of apologists to go at such length into these 
questions at the risk of being very wearisome to our 
readers, but it has been our aim as much as possible to 
make no statements without placing before those who 
are interested the materials for forming an intelligent 
opinion. Any other course would be to meet mere asser- 
tion by simple denial, and it is only by bold and unsub- 
stantiated statements which have been simply and in good 
faith accepted by ordinary readers who have not the 
opportunity, if they have even the will, to test their 
veracity, that apologists have so long held their ground. 
Our results regarding Valentinus so far may be stated as 
follows: the quotations which without any explanation 
are so positively and disingenuously imputed to Valen- 
tinus are not made by him, but by later writers of his 
school ;' and, moreover, the passages which are indicated 
by the English apologist as references to our two 


1 Scholten, Die alt, Zeugnisse, p. 68 ff.; Hilgenfeld, Die Evangelien, 
p- 345,anm. 5; Rumpf, Rev. de Théol., 1867, p. 17 ff. ; Davidson, Introd. 
N. T., ii. p. 390, p. 516; Zeller, Die Apostelgesch., p. 65 ff.; Theol. 
Jahrb., 1853, p. 151 ff.; Bretschneider, Probabilia de Evang.et Ep.Joannis, 
1820, p. 212 ff. ; Kirchhofer, Quellensamml., p. 387, anm, 1; Volkmar, Der 


74 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


Synoptic Gospels not only do not emanate from Valen- 
tinus, but do not agree with our Gospels, and are derived 
from other sources.’ 

The remarks of Canon Westcott with regard to the 
connection of Valentinus with our New Testament are 
on a par with the rest of his assertions. He says: 
“There is no reason to suppose that Valentinus differed 
from Catholic writers on the Canon of the New Testa- 
ment.”? We might ironically adopt this sentence, for as 
no writer whatever of the time of Valentinus, as we have 
seen, recdgnized any New Testament Canon at all, he 
certainly did not in this respect differ from the other 
writers of that period. Canon Westcott relies upon the 
statement of Tertullian, but even here, although he 
quotes the Latin passage in a note, he does not fully 
give its real sense in his text. He writes in immediate 
continuation of the quotation given above: “ Tertullian 
says that in this he differed from Marcion, that he at 
least professed to accept ‘the whole instrument,’ per- 
verting the interpretation, where Marcion mutilated the 
text.” Now the assertion of Tertullian has a very 
important modification, which, to any one acquainted 
with the very unscrupulous boldness of the ‘ Great 
African” in dealing with religious controversy, is 
extremely significant. He does not make the assertion 
positively and of his own knowledge, but modifies it by 
saying: “Nor, indeed, if Valentinus uses the whole 
instrument, as it seems (neque enim si Valentinus 


Ursprung, p. 70 f.; Theol. Jahrb., 1854, p. 108 ff., 125 f. ; Weizsdcker, 
Unters. evang. Gesch., p. 234; J. J. Tayler, The Fourth Gospel, 1867, 
p- 57. 

1 Of. Zeller, Die Apostelgesch., p. 67 f.; Kirchhofer, Quellensamml., 
p- 387, anm. 1. 

2 On the Canon, p. 259. 


VALENTINUS. 75 


integro instrumento uti videtur),”? &c. Tertullian 
evidently knew very little of Valentinus himself, and 
had probably not read his writings at all.? His treatise 
against the Valentinians is avowedly not original, but, as 
he himself admits, is compiled from the writings of 
Justin, Miltiades, Irenzeus, and Proclus.2 Tertullian 
would not have hesitated to affirm anything of this kind 
positively, had there been any ground for it, but his 
assertion is at once too uncertain, and the value of his 
statements of this nature much too small for such a 
remark to have any weight as evidence.* — Besides, by his 
own showing Valentinus altered Scripture (sine dubio 
emendans),® which he could not have done had he recog- 
nized it as of canonical authority. We cannot, how- 
ever, place any reliance upon criticism emanating from 
Tertullian. 

All that Origen seems to know on this subject is that 
the followers of Valentinus (rods ἀπὸ Οὐαλεντίνου) have 
altered the form of the Gospel (μεταχαράξαντες τὸ 
εὐαγγέλιον). Clement of Alexandria, however, informs 
us that Valentinus, like Basilides, professed to have 
direct traditions from the Apostles, his teacher being 
Theodas, a disciple of the Apostle Paul.® If he had 
known any Gospels which he believed to have apostolic 
authority, there would clearly not have been any need 
of such tradition. Hippolytus distinctly affirms that 
Valentinus derived his system from Pythagoras and Plato, 


1 De Prescrip. Heer., 38. 
* Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 67; Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii. 


p- 390. 3 Adv. Valent., 5. 

* Baur, Unters. kan. Evv., p. 357 ; Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii. p. 390, 
Reuss, Hist. du Canon, p. 70. 5 De Preescrip. Heer., 80. 

5 Credner, Beitriage, i. p. 38. 7 Contra Cels., ii, 27. 


8 Strom., vii. 17, § 106. 


76 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


and “not from the Gospels” (οὐκ ἀπὸ τῶν εὐαγγελίων), 
and that consequently he might more properly be con- 
sidered a Pythagorean and Platonist than a Christian.’ 
Irenzeus, in like manner, asserts that the Valentinians 
derive their views from unwritten or unscriptural sources 
(ἐξ ἀγράφων ἀναγινώσκοντες), and he accuses them of 
rejecting the Gospels, for after enumerating them,* he 
continues: “When, indeed, they are refuted out of the 
Scriptures, they turn round in accusation of these same 
Scriptures, as though they were not correct, nor of 
authority . . . For (they say) that it (the truth) 
was not conveyed by written records but viva voce.”* 
In the same chapter he goes on to show that the Valen- 
tinians not only reject the authority of Scripture, but 
also reject ecclesiastical tradition. He says: “But, 
again, when we refer them to that tradition which is 
from the Apostles, which has been preserved through a 
succession of Presbyters in the Churches, they are 
opposed to tradition, affirming themselves wiser not only 
than Presbyters, but even than the Apostles, in that they 
have discovered the uncorrupted truth. For (they say) 
the Apostles mixed up matters which are of the law with 
the words of the Saviour, &c. . . . It comes to this, 
they neither consent to Scripture nor to tradition. 
(Evenit itaque, neque Scripturis jam, neque Traditioni 
consentire eos.)”> We find, therefore, that even in the 
time of Irenzeus the Valentinians rejected the writings 


1 Ref. Omn. Heer., vi. 29; cf. vi. 21. 
2 Ady. Heer.,i. 8, § 1. 16. its 3,5 1s 
4 Cum enim ex Scripturis arguuntur, in accusationem convertuntur 
ipsarum Scripturarum, quasi non recte habeant, neque sint ex auctoritate. 
. Non enim per litteras traditam illam, sed per vivam vocem, &c. 
Iona Ady. Heer., iii. 2,.§ 1. 
5 70., 1.2,4-2. 


VALENTINUS. 77 


of the New Testament as authoritative documents, which 
they certainly would not have done had the Founder of 
their sect himself acknowledged them. So far from this 
being the case, there was absolutely no New Testament 
Canon for Valentinus himself to deal with,! and his 
perfectly orthodox contemporaries recognized no other 
Holy Scriptures than those of the Old Testament. 
Irenzeus, however, goes still further, and states that the 
Valentinians of his time not only had many Gospels, but 
that they possessed one peculiar to themselves. ‘“‘ Those 
indeed who are followers of Valentinus,” he says, “on 
the other hand, being without any fear, putting forth 
their own compositions, boast that they have more 
Gospels than there are. Indeed they have proceeded so 
far in audacity that they entitle their not long written 
work the Gospel of Truth, agreeing in nothing with the 
Gospels of the Apostles, so that there is no Gospel 
according to them which is not blasphemous.”? It 
follows clearly, from the very name of the Valentinian 
Gospel, that they did not consider that others contained 
the truth,* and indeed Irvenzeus himself perceived this, for 
he continues: ‘‘ For if what is published by them be the 
Gospel of Truth, but is dissimilar from those which have 
been delivered to us by the Apostles, any may perceive 
who please, as is demonstrated by these very Scriptures, 
that that which has been handed down from the Apostles 
is not the Gospel of Truth.”* These passages speak for 


1 Reuss, Hist. du Canon, p. 69 f.; Credner, Gesch. N. T. Kan., p. 24. 

3 Hi vero,qui sunt a Valentino, iterum exsistentes extra omnem timorem, 
suas conscriptiones proferentes, plura habere gloriantur, quam sint ipsa 
Evangelia. Siquidem in tantum processerunt audacie, uti quod ab his 
non olim conscriptum est, veritatis Evangelium titulent, in nihilo con- 
veniens apostolorum Evyangeliis, ut nec Evangelium quidem sit apud eos 
sine blasphemia. Jrencus, Ady. Hueer., iii. 11, ὃ 9. 

3 Credner, Beitrage, i. p. 38, f. 4 Treneus, Ady. Heer., iii. 11, § 9. 


78 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


themselves, and we need not further comment upon the 
statements of Canon Westcott. It has been suggested 
that the “ Gospel of Truth” was a harmony of the four 
Gospels. This, however, cannot by any possibility have 
been the case, inasmuch as Irenzeus distinctly says that 
it did not agree in anything with the Gospels of the 
Apostles. We have been compelled to devote too much 
space to Valentinus, and we now leave him with the 
certainty that in nothing does he afford any evidence 
even of the existence of our Synoptic Gospels. 


1 Bleek, Einl. N. T., p. 638. 


MARCION. 79 


CHAPTER VII. 
MARCION. 


WE must now turn to the great Heresiarch of the 
second century, Marcion, and consider the evidence 
regarding our Gospels which may be derived from what 
we know of him. ‘The importance, and at the same 
time the difficulty, of arriving at a just conclusion from 
the materials within our reach have rendered Marcion’s 
Gospel the object of very elaborate criticism, and the 
discussion of its actual character has continued with 
fluctuating results for nearly a century. 

Marcion was born at Sinope, in Pontus, of which place 
his father was Bishop,' and although it is said that he 
aspired to the first place in the Church of Rome,? the 
Presbyters refused him communion on account of his 
peculiar views of Christianity. We shall presently more 
fully refer to these opinions, but here it will be sufficient 
to say that he objected to what he considered the debase- 
ment of true Christianity by Jewish elements, and he 
upheld the teaching of Paul alone, in opposition to that 
of all the other Apostles, whom he accused of mixing 
up matters of the law with the Gospel of Christ, and 


1 Epiphanius, Heer., xlii. 1 ed. Petay., p. 302; Bleek, Hinl. N. T., 
p. 125; Credner, Beitrage, i. p. 40f. ; Tischendorf, Wann wurden, u. 5. w., 
p. 57; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 272. 

2 Epiph., Heer., xlii. 1. 


80 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


falsifying Christianity,’ as Paul himself had protested.? 
He came to Rome about a.p. 139—142,3 and con- 
tinued teaching for some twenty years* His high 
personal character and elevated views produced” a 
powerful effect upon his time,® and, although during his 
own lifetime and long afterwards vehemently and with 
every opprobrious epithet denounced by ecclesiastical 
writers, his opinions were so widely adopted that in the 
time of Epiphanius his followers were said to be found 
throughout the whole world.® 

Marcion is said to have recognized as his sources of 
Christian doctrine, besides tradition, a single Gospel and 
ten Epistles of Paul, which in his collection stood in the 
following order ;—Epistle to Galatians, Corinthians (2), 
Romans, Thessalonians (2), Ephesians (which he had with 


1 Treneus, Ady. Heer., iti. 2, § 2; cf. 12, §12; Tertullian, Ady. Marc., 
iv. 2,3; cf. i. 20; Origen, in Joann. T. v., § 4; Neander, Allg. K. G., 
1843, ii. p. 815 f.; cf. p. 795; Schleiermacher, Lit. nachlass iii. Sammtl. 
Werke, viii; Eiml. N. T., 1845, p. 214 f.; Westcott, On the Canon, 
p. 273 f. 

? Gal. i. 6 ff.; cf. 11. 4 ff., 11 ff.; cf. 2 Cor. xi. 1 ff. 

3 Anger, Synops. Ey., p. xxiv. ; Baur, Gesch. chr. maid i. p. 196; 
Bleek, Einl. N. T., p. 126; Bunsen, Bibelwerk, vii. p. 562; Burton, pat 
tures on Eccl. History of first Three Centuries, ii. p. 105 ff.; Credner, 
Beitrage, i. p. 40 f.; Hilgenfeld, Der Kanon, p. 21 f.; Lipsius, Zeitschr. 
wiss. Theol., 1867, p. 75 ff.; Reuss, Gesch. N. T., p. 244; Scholten, Die 
alt. Zeugnisse, p. 73; Schleiermacher, Gesch. chr. Kirche, Sammtl. Werke, 
1840, xi. 1 abth., p. 107; Tischendorf, Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 57; 
Volkmar, Theol. Jahrb., 1850, p. 120, ib., 1855, p. 270 ff.; Westcott, On 
the Canon, p. 273. The accounts of the Fathers are careless and con- 
flicting. Cf. Tertullian, Ady. Marc., i. 19; Epiph., Her., xlii. 1; 
Ireneus, Ady. Her., ili. 4, § 3; Clem. Al., Strom., vii. 17, 4.D. 140—150, 
Bertholdt, Einl. A. und N. T., i. p. 103. 

* Reuss, Gesch. N. T., p. 244; Lipsius, Zeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1867 ; 
p. 75 ff.; Volkmar, Theol. Jahrb., 1855, p. 270 ff. 

5. Credner, Beitrage, i. p. 40; Schleiermacher, Sammtl. Werke, viii. ; 
Einl. N. T., 1845, p. 64; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 272 f. 

6 Epiph., Heer., xlii. 1. 


MARCION, 81 


the superscription “to the Laodiceans ᾽),1] Colossians, 
Philippians, and Philemon.? None of the other books 
which now form part of the canonical New Testament 
were either mentioned or recognized by Marcion.? This 
is the oldest collection of Apostolic writings of which 
there is any trace,* but there was at that time no other 
‘Holy Seripture ” than the Old Testament, and no New 
Testament Canon had yet been imagined. Marcion 
neither claimed canonical authority for these writings,® 
nor did he associate with them any idea of. divine 
inspiration.® We have already seen the animosity 
expressed by contemporaries of Marcion against the 
Apostle Paul. 

The principal interest in connection with the collection 
of Marcion, however, centres in his single Gospel, the 
nature, origin, and identity of which have long been 
actively and minutely discussed by learned men of all 
shades of opinion with very varying results. The work 
itself is unfortunately no longer extant, and our only 
knowledge of it is derived from the bitter and very 
inaccurate opponents of Marcion. It seems to have 


1 Tertullian, Ady. Mare., vy. 11, 17; Zpiph., Heer., xl. 9; ef. 10, 
Schol. xl. 

2 Tertullian, Ady. Mare., y.; Epiph., Heer., xii. 9. (Epiphanius 
transposes the order of the last two Epistles.) 

3. Credner, Beitraige, i. p. 42; Hug, Hinl. N. T., i. p. 68 ff.; Westcott, 
On the Canon, p. 275. 

4 Baur, Paulus, i. p. 277 f.; Reuss, Hist. du Canon, p. 76f.; TZis- 
chendorf, Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 57; Westcott, On the Canon, 
p- 272. 

5 Credner, Beitriige, i. p. 42 f., 44 f.; Gesch. N. T. Kaen., p. 23; 
Bunsen, Bibelwerk, viii. p. 563; Bleek, Einl. N. T., p. 126; Hilgenfeld, 
Der Kanon, p. 22 f.; Késtlin, Theol. Jahrb., 1851, p. 151; Reuss, Gesch. 
N.T., p. 244, p. 286; Hist. du Canon, p. 72; Ritschl, Theol. Jahrb., 
1851, p. 529; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 74; Het Paulinisch 
Evangelie, p. 6. 

5 Creduer, Beitrage, i. p. 45 f. 

VOL. Il. G 


32 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


borne much the same analogy to our third Canonical 
Gospel which existed between the Gospel according to 
the Hebrews and our first Synoptic’ The Fathers, 
whose uncritical and, in such matters, prejudiced cha- 
racter led them to denounce every variation from their 
actual texts as a mere falsification, and without argument 
to assume the exclusive authenticity and originality of 
our Gospels, which towards the beginning of the third 
century had acquired wide circulation in the Church, 
vehemently stigmatized Marcion as an audacious adul- 
terator of the Gospel, and affirmed his evangelical work 
to be merely a mutilated and falsified version of the 
“ Gospel according to Luke.” ? 

This view continued to prevail, almost without question 
or examination, till towards the end of the eightcenth 
century, when Biblical criticism began to exhibit the 
earnestness and activity which have ever since more or 
less characterized it. Semler first abandoned the pre- 
valent tradition, and, after analyzing the evidence, he 
concluded that Marcion’s Gospel and Luke’s were diffe- 
rent versions of an earlier work, and that the so-called 
heretical Gospel was one of the numerous Gospels from 
amongst which the Canonical had been selected by the 
Church. Griesbach about the same time also rejected 
the ruling opimion, and denied the close relationship 
usually asserted to exist between the two Gospels.° 


1 Schoregler, Das nachap. Zeitalter, i. p. 260. 

2 περ, Adv. Heer., i. 27, §2; πὶ. 12, § 12; Tertullian, Adv. Marc., 
iv. 2—6; Epiphanius, Heer., xhi. 9,11; Origen, Contra Cels., ἢ. 27; 
Theodoret, Hzer. fab., i. 24. 

3 Vorrede zu Townson’s Abhandli. ab. ἃ. vier Evv., 1783. 

* Neuer Versuch, die Gemeinniitzige Auslegung τι. anwend. der N. T. 
zu befordern, 1786, p. 162 f.; cf. Prolegg. in Ep. ad Galatas. 

5. Cure in hist. textus epist. Pauli, 1799, sect. ii, Opuscula Academica, 
i. p. 124 ££ 


MARCION. 83 


Léffler! and Corrodi? strongly supported Semler’s con- 
clusion, that Marcion was no ‘mere falsifier of Luke’s 
Gospel, and J. E, C. Schmidt? went still further, and 
asserted that Marcion’s Gospel was the genuine Luke, 
and our actual Gospel a later version of it with altera- 
tions and additions. Eichhorn,* after a fuller and more 
exhaustive examination, adopted similar views; he 
repudiated the statements of Tertullian regarding 
Marcion’s Gospel as utterly untrustworthy, asserting 
that he had not that work itself before him at all, and 
he maintained that Marcion’s Gospel was the more 
original text and one of the sources of Luke. Bolten,’ 
Bertholdt,® Schleiermacher,? and D. Schultz*® likewise 
maintained that Marcion’s Gospel was by no means a 
mutilated version of Luke, but, on the contrary, an 
independent original Gospel. <A similar conclusion was 
arrived at by Gieseler,® but later, after Hahn’s criticism, 
he abandoned it, and adopted the opinion that Marcion’s 
Gospel was constructed out of Luke.’® 

On the other hand, the traditional view was maintained 


1 Marcionem Pauli epist. et Luce evang. adulterasse dubitatur, 1788, in 
Velthusen απο et Ruperti Comment. Theologics, 1794, i. pp. 180— 
218. 

? Versuch einer Beleuchtung 4, Gesch. des jiid. u. Christl. Bibel- 
kanons, 1792, ii. p. 158 ff. 169. 

5. Ueber das aichte Evang. des Lucas, in Henke’s Mag. fiir Religions- 
philos., u. s. w., iii. 1796, p. 468 ff., 482 f., 507 7. 

4 Hinl. N. T., 1820, i. pp. 43—84. 

Ὁ Bericht des Lucas yon Jesu dem Messia. Vorbericht, 796, 
p. 29 f. 

§ Finl. A. u. N. T., 1813, iii. p. 1293 ff. 

7 Simmtl. Werke, viii. ; Einl. N. T., 1845, p. 64 f., 197 f., 214 ἢ, 

ὃ. Theol. Stud. τι. Krit., 1829, 3, pp. 586—595. 

9 Entst. schr. Eyy., 1818, p. 24 ff. 

© Recens. ἃ. Hahn’s Das Ey. Marcion’s in Hall. Allg. Litt. Z., 1822, 
p. 225 ff.; K. G., i. § 43. 


84 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


by Storr,! Arneth,? Hug,*? Neander,* and Gratz,> although 
with little originality of investigation or argument ; and 
Paulus ® sought to reconcile both views by admitting 
that Marcion had before him the Gospel of Luke, but 
denying that he mutilated it, arguing that Tertullian 
did not base his arguments on the actual Gospel of 
Marcion, but upon his work, the “ Antithesis.” Hahn,’ 
however, undertook a more exhaustive examination of 
the problem, attempting to reconstruct the text of 
Marcion’s Gospel® from the statements of Tertullian 
and Epiphanius, and he came to the conclusion that the 
work was a mere version, with omissions and alterations 
made by the Heresiarch in the interest of his system, of 
the third Canonical Gospel. Olshausen® arrived at the 
same result, and with more or less of modification but 
no detailed argument, similar opinions were expressed 
by Credner,’® De Wette,"’ and others.’? 


1 Zweck d. Evang. Gesch. u. Br. Johan., 1786, pp. 254—265. 

2 Ueber ἃ. Bekanntsch. Marcion’s mit. u. Kanon, ἃ. 5. w., 1809. 

3 inl. N. '., 1847, i. p. 64 ff. 

4 Genet. Entwickl. d. yorn. Gnost. Syst., 1818, p. 311 ff.; cf. Allg. 
K. G., 1843, ii. pp. 792—816. 

5. Krit. Unters. iib. Marcion’s Eyang., 1818. 

6 Theol. exeg. Consery., 1822, Lief. 1. p. 116 ff. 

7 Das Evang. Marcion’s in seiner urspriingl. Gestalt, 1823. 

8 The reconstructed text also in Thilo’s Cod. Apocr. N. T., 1832, 
pp. 403—486. 

9 Die Echtheit der vier kan. Evy., 1823, pp. 107—215. 

10 Beitrage, i. p. 43. 

1 Finl. N. T., 6th ausg., 1860, p. 119 ff. 

2 The following writers, either before Hahn's work was written or sub- 
sequently, have maintained the dependence, in one shape cr another, of 
Marcion’s Gospel on Luke. Becker, Exam. Crit. de 1 Ἐν. de Marcion, 
1837; Bleek, Kinl. N. T., p. 135; Bunsen, Bibelwerk, viii. p. 565 f.; 
Anger, Synopsis Ey. Proleg., xxiv. ff; Celiérier, Introd, Crit. N. T., 
1823, p. 25 f.; Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii. p. 51 f.; Hbrard, Wiss. krit. 
eyang. Gesch., p. 810; Ewald, Jahrb. bibl. Wiss., 1853—54, p. 48; 
Guericke, Gesammtgesch. N. T., p. 231; H’buch K. G., i. p. 190; 
Gfrérer, Allg. K. G.,1. p. 363 ff. ; Harting, Queest. de Marcione Lucani, 


MARCION, 85 


Not satisfied, however, with the method and results of 
Hahn and Olshausen, whose examination, although more 
minute than any previously undertaken, still left much 
to be desired, Ritschl! made a further thorough investi- 
gation of the character of Marcion’s Gospel, and decided 
that it was in no case a mutilated version of Luke, but, 
on the contrary, an original and independent work, from 
which the Canonical Gospel was produced by the intro- 
duction of anti-Marcionitish passages and readings. 
Baur? strongly enunciated similar views, and maintained 
that the whole error lay in the mistake of the Fathers, 
who had, with characteristic assumption, asserted the 
earlier and shorter Gospel of Marcion to be an abbrevia- 
tion of the later Canonical Gospel, instead of recognizing 
the latter as a mere extension of the former. Schwegler® 
had already, in a remarkable criticism of Marcion’s 
Gospel declared it to be an independent and original 
work, and in no sense a mutilated Luke, but, on the 
contrary, probably the source of that Gospel. Késtlin,* 
while stating that the theory that Marcion’s Gospel was 
an earlier work and the basis of that ascribed to Luke 
was not very probable, affirmed that much of the 


Evangelii, &c., 1849; Kirchhofer, Quellensamml., p. 48, p. 361, anm. 10; 
Meyer, Krit.-exeg. Kommentar N. T., 1867, 1 abth. 2 hiilfte, p. 228; 
Michaelis, Einl. N. T., 1788, i. p. 40; Neudecker, Eiml. N. T., 1840, 
p. 68 ff.; Nicolas, Et. sur les Ev. Apocr., 1866, p. 157 f.; Rhode, Prolegg. 
ad Queest. de evang. Marcionis denuo instit. 1834; Reuss, Gesch. N. T., 
p. 244 f.; Rev. de Théol., 1857, p.4f.; Rumpf, Rev. de Théol., 1867, 
p. 20 f.; Schott, Isagoge, 1830, p. 13 ff., note 7; Scholten, Die alt. Zeug- 
nisse, p. 73 f.; Tischendorf, Wann wurden, τι. 5. w., pp. 56—65; Westcott, 
On the Canon, p. 272 ff.; Wilcke, Tradition τι. Mythe, 1837, p, 28; Zeller, 
Die Apostelgesch., p. 12 ff. 

1 Das Evangelium Marcion’s, 1846. 

? Knit. Unters. kan. Evy., 1847, p. 397 ff. 

* Das nachap. Zeit., 1846, i. p. 260 ff.; Theol. Jahrb., 1843, pp. 573— 
590. 

* Der Ursprung ἃ. synopt. Evy., 1853, p. 303 ff. 


86 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


Marcionitish text was more original than the Canonical, 
and that both Gospels must be considered versions of the 
same original, although Luke’s was the later and more 
corrupt. 

These results, however, did not satisfy Volkmar,’ who 
entered afresh upon a searching examination of the whole 
subject, and concluded that Marcion’s work was simply a 
version of Luke, mutilated and altered to suit his own dog- 
matic views. This criticism, together with the arguments 
of Hilgenfeld, succeeded in convincing Ritschl,? who 
withdrew from his previous opinions, although he still 
maintained some of Marcion’s readings to be more 
original than those of Luke,’ and generally defended 
Marcion from the aspersions of the Fathers, on the 
ground that. his procedure with regard to Luke’s Gospel 
was precisely that of the Canonical Evangelists to each 
other ;* Luke himself being clearly dependent both on 
Mark and Matthew. Baur was likewise induced by 
Volkmar’s and Hilgenfeld’s arguments to modify his 
views ;° but although for the first time he admitted that 
Marcion had altered the original of his Gospel frequently 
for dogmatic reasons, he still maintained that there was 
an older form of the Gospel without the earlier chapters, 
from which both Marcion and Luke directly constructed 
their Gospels ;—both of them stood in the same line in 
regard to the original; both altered it; the one 
abbreviated, the other extended 107 Encouraged by 
this success, but not yet satisfied, Volkmar immediately 
undertook a further and more exhaustive examination of 

1 Theol. Jahrb., 1850, pp. 110—188, pp. 185—235. ὲ 

2 10., 1861, p. 528 ff. 3 1ῦ,, p. 530 ff. 

4 Ib, p. 529. 5 Tb., p. 534 ff. 


6 Das Markuseyang. Anhang iib. das Ey. Marcion’s, 1851, p. 191 ff. 
7 Ib., p. 226 f. 


MARCION. 87 


the text of Marcion, in the hope of finally settling the 
discussion, and he again, but with greater emphasis, 
confirmed his previous results. In the meantime 
Hilgenfeld? had seriously attacked the problem, and, like 
Hahn and Volkmar, had sought to reconstruct the text of 
Marcion, and, whilst admitting many more original and 
genuine readings in the text of Marcion, he had also 
decided that his Gospel was dependent on Luke, although 
he further concluded that the text of Luke had subse- 
quently gone through another, though slight, manipulation 
before it assumed its present form. These conclusions 
he again fully confirmed after a renewed investigation of 
the subject.? 

This brief sketch of the controversy which has so long 
occupied the attention of critics will at least show the 
insecure position of the matter, and the uncertainty of 
the data upon which any decision is based. We have 
not attempted to give more than the barest outlines, but 
it will appear as we go on that most of those who decide 
against the general independence of Marcion’s Gospel, at 
the same time admit his partial originality and superiority 
of readings over the third Synoptic, and justify his 
treatment of Luke as a procedure common to the Evan- 
gelists, and warranted not only by their example but by 
the fact that no Gospels had yet emerged from the posi-° 
tion of private documents in limited circulation. We 
are, however, very far from considering the discussion as 
closed ; but, on the contrary, we believe that a just and 
impartial judgment in the case must lead to the conclu- 
sion that if, in the absence of sufficient data, Marcion’s 


1 Das Evang. Marcion’s, 1852. 
2 Ueb. die Evy. Justin’s der Clem. Hom. und Marcion’s, 1850, p. 389 ff. 
3 Theol. Jahrb., 1853, pp. 192—244. 


88 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


Gospel cannot be absolutely proved to be a special and 
original Gospel, still less can it be shown to be a mutilated 
version of Luke’s Gospel. There are very strong reasons 
for considering it to be either an independent work, 
derived from the same sources as our third Synoptic, 
or a more primitive version of that Gospel. 

Marcion’s Gospel not being any longer extant, it is 
important to establish clearly the nature of our know- 
ledge regarding it, and the exact value of the data from 
which various attempts have been made to reconstruct 
the text. It is manifest that the evidential force of any 
deductions from a reconstructed text is almost wholly 
dependent on the accuracy and sufficiency of the 
materials from which that text is derived. 

The principal sources of our information regarding 
Marcion’s Gospel are the works of his most bitter de- 
nouncers Tertullian and Epiphanius, who, however, it 
must be borne in mind, wrote long after his time,—the 
work of Tertullian against Marcion having been composed, 
about A.D. 208,' and that of Epiphanius very much later. 
We may likewise merely mention here the “ Dialogus 
de recta in dewm fide,” commonly attributed to Origen, 
although it cannot haye been composed earlier than the 
middle of the fourth century.? The first three sections 
are directed against the Marcionites, but only deal with 
a late form of their doctrines.* As Volkmar admits that 
the author clearly had only a general acquaintance with 
the “Antithesis,” and principal proof passages of the 
Marcionites, but, although he certainly possessed the 


1 Cf. Tertullian, Ady. Mare., 1.15; Neander, Antignosticus, 1849, 
p. 398; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 75. 

? Volkmar, Das Ey. Marcion’s, p. 52, 

8. 7}. p. 62 f. 


MARCION. 89 


Epistles, had not the Gospel of Marcion itself,’ we need 
not now more particularly consider it. Se 

We are, therefore, dependent upon the “ dogmatic and 
partly blind and unjust adversaries”? of Marcion for our 
only knowledge of the text they stigmatize ; and when 
the character of polemical discussion in the early cen- 
turies of our era is considered, it is certain that great 
caution must be exercised, and not too much weight 
attached to the statements of opponents who regarded a 
heretic with abhorrence, and attacked him with an acri- 
mony which carried them far beyond the limits of fairness 
and truth. ‘Their religious controversy bristles with 
misstatements, and is turbid with pious abuse. Ter- 
tullian was a master of this style, and the vehement 
vituperation with which he opens? and often interlards 
his work against “ the impious and sacrilegious Marcion” 
offers anything but a guarantee of fair and legitimate 
criticism. Epiphanius was, if possible, still more 
passionate and exaggerated in his representations against 
him.* Undue importance must not, therefore, be 
attributed to their statements.> 

Not only should there be caution, and great caution; 
exercised in receiving the representations of one side in 
a religious discussion, conducted in an age when the 
absence of any spirit of calm criticism only gave freer 
scope to the attacks of intolerant zeal, but more particu- 
larly is such caution necessary in the case of Tertullian, 
whose trustworthiness is very far from being above 


} Volkmar, Das Ev. Marcion’s, p. 53. 

5. Ib., Theol. Jahrb., 1850, p. 120. 5 Ady. Marc., i. 1. 

4 Of. De Wette, Hinl. N. T., p. 122.. 

δ Reuss, Hist. du Canon, p. 71, 72; Gieseler, Entst. βοῦν. Evy., p. 25; 


Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 75; Ἰδρϑονς Theol. Jahrb., 1850, p. 120 ; 
Westcott, On the Canon, p. 276; De Wette, Hinl. N. T., p. 122. 


90 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


suspicion, and whose inaccuracy is often apparent.’ 
“Son christianisme,” says Reuss, “est ardent, sincere, 
profondément ancré dans son dme. L’on voit 4111] en 
vit. Mais ce christianisme est Apre, insolent, brutal, 
ferrailleur. [1 est sans onction et sans charité, quelque- 
fois méme sans loyauté, dés qu'il se trouve en face d’une 
opposition queleonque. C'est un soldat qui ne sait que 
se battre et qui oublie, tout en se battant, qu il faut 
aussi respecter son ennemi. Dhialecticien subtil et rusé, 
il excelle ἃ ridiculiser ses adversaires. L’injure, le 
sarcasme, un langage qui rappelle parfois en vérité le 
genre de Rabelais, une effronterie d’aftirmation dans les 
moments de faiblesse qui frise et attemt méme la mau- 
yaise foi, voild ses armes. Je sais ce qu'il faut en cela 
mettre sur le compte de I’époque. . . . Si, au second siécle, 
tous les partis, sauf quelques gnostiques, sont intolérants, 
Tertullian lest plus que tout le monde.” ? 

The charge of mutilating and interpolating the Gospel 
of Luke is first brought against Marcion by Irenzeus,® 
and it is reported with still greater vehemence and fulness 
by Tertullian,* and Epiphanius ;° but the mere assertion 
by Fathers at the end of the second and in the third 
centuries, that a Gospel different from their own was one 
of the Canonical Gospels falsified and mutilated, can 
have no weight whatever in itself in the inquiry as to 
the real nature of that work. Their dogmatic point of 


1 Baur, Unters. kan. Evv., 1847, p. 357; Reuss, Rey. de Théol., 1857, 
p. 67 f.; Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeitalter, i. p. 278 f. 
2 Reuss, Rey. de Théol., 1857, p. 67 f. 

3 Et super hee, id quod est secundum Lucam Evangelium circumci- 
ΠΟΤΕ νας Trenceus, Ady. Heer., 1. 21, ὃ 2; cf. iii. 11, § 7; 12,812; 14, § 4. 
4 Ady. Marc., iv. 1, 2, 4 et passim. 5 Heer., xlii. 9, 10 et passim. 

6 Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. Justin’s, p. 446 f., 448; Reuss, Hist. du Canon, 
p. 72f.; Volkmar, Theol. Jahrb., 1850, p. 120; Ritschl, Das Evang. 
Marcion’s, p. 23 ff. : 


- 


MAROION. 93 


view, and arbitrary assumption of exclusive originalisa 
and priority for the four Gospels of the Church led them, 
without any attempt at argument, to treat every other 
evangelical work as an offshoot or falsification of these. 
We need not refer to the childish reasoning of Irenzeus! 
to prove that there could not be more nor less than four 
Gospels, which he evidently considered quite conclusive. 
The arguments by which Tertullian endeavours to estab- 
lish that the Gospels of Luke and the other Canonical 
Kivangelists were more ancient than that of Marcion? is 
on a par with it, and shows that he had no idea of 
historical or critical evidence.* We are therefore driven 
back upon such actual data regarding the text and 
contents of Marcion’s Gospel as are given by the Fathers, 
as the only basis, in the absence of the Gospel itself, upon 
which any hypothesis as to its real character can be 
built. The question therefore is: Are these data suffi- 
ciently ample and trustworthy for a decisive judgment 
from internal evidence ? if indeed internal evidence in 
such a. case can be decisive at all. 

All that we know, then, of Marcion’s Gospel is simply 
what Tertullian and Epiphanius have stated with regard 
to it. It is, however, undeniable, and indeed is univer- 
sally admitted, that their object in dealing with it at all 
was entirely dogmatic, and not in the least degree critical.* 
The spirit of that age was indeed so essentially uncri- 
tical® that not even the canonical text could waken it into 


1 Ady. Heer., iii. 11, §§ 8, 9. 2 Adv. Mare., iv. 5. 
% Hichhorn, Hinl. N. T., i. p. 73; Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., i. 
Ῥ. 276. : 


* Kirchhofer, Quellensamml., p. 361, anm. 10, p. 362, anm. 12; //il- 
genfeld, Die Evy. Justin’s, p. 447 f.; Reuss, Rey. de Théol., 1857, p. 4; 
Volkmar, Theol. Jahrb., 1850, p. 120; Das Evang. Marcion’s, 1852, pp. 29, 
31; De Wette, Kinl. N. T., p. 123; Tischendorf, Wann wurden, u. 8. w., 
p. 62. 5 Westcott, On the Canon, p. 8. 


92 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


activity. Tertullian very clearly states what his object 
~ was in attacking Marcion’s Gospel. After asserting that 
the whole aim of the Heresiarch was to prove a dis- 
agreement between the Old Testament and the New, and 
that for this purpose he had erased from the Gospel all 
that was contrary to his opinion, and retained all that 
he had considered favourable, Tertullian continues with 
regard to the portions retained : “ These we shall collect, 
these we shall particularly consider,—whether they shall 
be more for our view,—whether they destroy the assump- 
tion of Marcion. Then it will be proved that he has shown 
the same defect of blindness of heresy both in that which 
he has erased, and that which he has retained. Such 
will be the purpose and form of our little work.”' His 
method throughout is to quote passages of the Gospel for 
which he can find parallels in the Old Testament, and in 
this way to endeavour to establish a kind of harmony 
between them. Epiphanius explains his aim with equal 
clearness. His intention is to show how wickedly and 
disgracefully Marcion has mutilated and falsified the 
Gospel, and how fruitlessly he has done so, inasmuch 
as he has stupidly, or by oversight, allowed so much 
to remain in his Gospel by which he may be fully 
refuted.? 

As it is impossible within our limits fully to illustrate 
the procedure of the Fathers with regard to Marcion’s 
Gospel, and the nature and value of the materials 
they supply, we shall as far as possible quote the declara- 
tions of Volkmar and Hilgenfeld, who, in the true and 


1 Heec conveniemus, hiec amplectemur, si nobiscum magis fuerint, si 
Marcionis przesumptionem percusserint. _Tunc et illa constabit eodem 
vitio hzereticze czecitatis erasa quo et hzec reservata. Sic habebit intentio 
et forma opusculi nostri, &c., ἄς. Tertullian, Ady. Marc, iy. 6, 

? Epiphanius, Heer., xli. 9 f, 





MARCION. 93 


enlightened spirit of criticism, impartially state the 
character of the data available for the, understanding 
of the text. As these two critics have, by their able 
and learned investigations, done more than any others to 
educe and render possible a decision of the problem, 
their own estimate of the materials upon which a judg- 
ment has to be formed is of double value. With regard 
to*Tertullian, Volkmar explains that his desire is totally 
to annihilate the most dangerous heretic of his time,— 
first (Books i—iii.), to overthrow Marcion’s system in 
general as expounded in his “ Antithesis,’—and then 
(Book iv.) to show that even the Gospel of Marcion only 
contains Catholic doctrine (he concludes, “ Christus 
Jesus in Evangelio tuo meus est,’ c. 43); and there- 
fore he examines the Gospel only so far as may serve to 
establish his own view and refute that of Marcion. ‘“'To 
show,” Volkmar continues, “wherein this Gospel was 
falsified or mutilated, ἐ.6., varied from his own, on the 
contrary, is in no way his design, for he perceives that 
Marcion could cast back the reproach of interpolation, 
and in his time proof from internal grounds was hardly 
possible, so that only exceptionally, where a variation 
seems to him remarkable, does he specially mention it.” ? 
Of course the remark that proof from internal criticism 
of the text was hardly possible in Tertullian’s time refers 
to the total absence of the critical spirit regarding which 
we have already spoken, and which renders its display 
by any individual too isolated an intellectual effort to 
be expected. 

Hilgenfeld expresses precisely the same views of Ter- 
tullian’s object and procedure.? “In Book iv.” he says, 


1 Volkmar, Das Evang. Marcion’s, p. 29. 
3 Die Evy. Justin’s, p. 395 ff. 


94 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


“he carries out the project of refuting Marcion and his 
Antithesis of evangelical history out of his own Gospel. 
He proceeds to Marcion’s Gospel only with this dog- 
matic purpose, as he himself states in the principal 
passage of iv. 6... . Tertullian proposes to confine him- 
self to that which he (Marcion) allows to remain, and to 
prove that even this contains the doctrine of the Church.” ἢ 
With regard to Epiphanius, Hilgenfeld says, “ This writer 
also proceeds with the dogmatic object of refuting Mar- 
cion’s Gospel and.’Amdarodos.? But he has also the 
subsidiary design, in particular instances, of proving the 
audacity of the Beast, as he is pleased to call Marcion, in 
the mutilation of Luke. . Both representations supplement: 
each other, so that we can still, with tolerable certainty 
and completeness, determine the contents of the Mar- 
cionitish Gospel.”* In order not to separate the last 
phrase from its context, we have given it here a little in 
anticipation of its more appropriate place, but we shall 
see that this opinion has to be received in a very miti- 
gated way. As Hilgenfeld himself says, a few pages 
further on: “ From the critical stand-point one must, on 
the other hand, consider the statements of the Fathers of 
the Church only as expressions of their subjective view, 
which itself requires proof.”* Obviously statements 
which proceed from a mere dogmatic point of view, and 
which avowedly are not dictated by impartial criticism, 
are a very insecure and insufficient basis for the recon- 
struction of Marcion’s text. 

We understand this more fully when we consider the 
manner in which Tertullian and Epiphanius performed 


1 Die Evv. Justin’s, p. 395 ff. -2 Hoor., xlii. 9. 
8. Die Evy. Justin’s, p. 397 f.; cf. Volkmar, Das Hy. Marcion’s, p. 31. 
4 Ib., p. 446. 





MARCION. | 95 


the work they had undertaken. Hilgenfeld remarks : 
“ As Tertullian, in going through the Marcionitish Gospel, 
has only the object of refutation in view, he very 
rarely states clearly what is missing in it; and as, 
on the one hand, we can only venture to conclude from 
the silence of Tertullian that a passage is wanting, when 
it is altogether inexplicable that he should not have 
made use of it for the purpose of refutation; so, on 
the other, we must also know how Marcion used and 
interpreted his Gospel; and should never lose sight of 
Tertullian’s refutation and defence.”* It is scarcely 
necessary to point out how wide a field of conjecture 
is opened out and rendered necessary by this incomplete- 
ness of Tertullian.? Volkmar, upon the same subject, 
says: “In the same way his (Tertullian’s) silence may 
become weighty testimony for the fact that something 
is missing in Marcion’s Gospel which we read in Luke. 

But his silence a/one can only under certain 
conditions represent with diplomatic certainty an 
omission in Marcion. It is indeed probable that he 
would not lightly have passed over a passage in the 
Gospel of Marcion which could in any way be used 
for the refutation of its system, if one altogether 
similar had not preceded it, all the more as he frequently 
drags in such proof passages from Marcion’s text as it 
were by the hair, and often, in like manner, only with 
a certain sophistry, tries to refute his adversary out of 
the words of his own Gospel. But it is always possible 
that in his eagerness he has overlooked much; and 
besides, he believed that in replying to particular passages 


1 Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. Justin’s, p. 397, 
2 Ritschl, Das Ey. Marcion’s, p. 48 f.; Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., 
i. p. 262 ἢ 


96 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


he had done enough for many others of a similar kind ; 
indeed, avowedly, he will not willingly repeat himself. 
Nothing certain, therefore, can be deduced from the silence 
of Tertullian except when special circumstances enter.” * 
With such an opening for mere guesses, and for the inser- 
tion or omission of passages in accordance with precon- 
ceived ideas or feelings, it is scarcely possible that there 
should be either accuracy or agreement in reconstructing 
the text of Marcion’s Gospel, and Ritschl, in fact, 
reproaches Hahn with much too free a licence in inter- 
preting the silence of Tertullian.? 

Volkmar’s opinion of the incompleteness of Epiphanius 
is still more unfavourable than in the case of Tertullian. 
Comparing him with the latter, he says: “ More super- 
ficial is the procedure of the later Epiphanius, who has 
only the merit “οἵ basing his criticism on a copy of the 
Gospel of Marcion, quite independently from the work 
of Tertullian. . . . . How far we can build upon his 
statements, whether as regards their completeness or 
their trustworthiness, is not yet altogether clear, and yet 
so much depends on that.”* Volkmar then goes on to 
show how thoroughly Epiphanius intended to do his 
work, and yet, although we might, from what he himself 
leads us to expect, hope to find a complete catalogue of 
Marcion’s sins, the eager Father himself destroys this 
belief by his own admission of shortcomings. He 
proceeds: ‘ Epiphanius, however, only proves to us 
that absolute completeness in regard to that which 


1 Volkmar, Das Evang. Marcion’s, p. 29 f. 

2 Ritschl, Das Ey. Marcion’s, p. 48; cf. Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., 
i. p. 262. With regard to arguments a silentio, see Volkmar, Theol. Jahrb., 
1855, p. 237. 

3. Volkmar, Das Ey. Marcion’s, p. 31. 

4 Ib., p. 32. 5 Ib., p. 32 f., p. 42 ff. 


MARCION. 97 


Marcion had not in his Gospel is not to be reckoned upon 
in his Scholia. He has certainly intended to pass over 
nothing, but in the eagerness which so easily renders men 
superficial and blind much has escaped him.”! Further 
on, he says still more emphatically: “Nor is com- 
pleteness in his statements of the passages apparently 
opposed to Marcion to be reckoned upon in Epi- 
phanius, even if he aimed at it : it would be all the more 
important if he were always but fully trustworthy 
in his statements.”? This, Volkmar explains, Epi- 
phanius only is where, and so far as, he wishes to state 
an omission or variation in Marcion’s text from his own 
Canonical Gospel in his Scholia, in which case he 
minutely registers the smallest point from his Codex of 
Marcion, but this is to be clearly distinguished from cases 
where, in his Refutations, he represents something as 
falsified by Marcion ; for only in the earlier sketch of his 
Scholia (Proem. 10) had he the Marcionitish Gospel before 
him and compared it with Luke ; but in the case of the 
Refutations, on the contrary, which he wrote later, he 
has not again compared the Gospel of Luke nor, most 
probably, even the Gospel of Marcion itself. “It is, 
however, altogether different,” continues Volkmar, “as 
regards the statements of Epiphanius concerning the 
part of the Gospel of Luke which is preserved in 
Marcion. Whilst he desires to be strictly literal in the 
account of the variations, and also with two excep- 
tions is so, he so generally adheres only to the contents 
of the passages retained by Marcion, that altogether 
literal quotations only belong to the exceptions ; 


1 Volkmar, Das Ev. Marcion’s, p. 33 ; ef. Neudecker, Finl. N. T., p. 75 ff. ; 
Hahn, Das Ey. Marcion’s, p. 114 f.; De Wette, Einl. N. T., p. 123; 
Kirchhofer, Quellensamml., p. 361, anm. 10, p, 362 f., anm. 15, 16, 17. 

2 Volkmar, ib., p. 43. 

VOL. Il. H 


98 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


throughout, however, where passages of greater extent are 
referred to, these are not merely abbreviated, but also 
are quoted in very free fashion, and nowhere can we 
even reckon that the passage in Marcion ran verbally 
as Epiphanius quotes it.”? 

Volkmar, moreover, not only reproaches Epiphanius 
with free quotation,? alteration of the text without 
explanation,*® and alteration of the same passage in more 
than one way,* abbreviations and omission of parts of 
quotations,® sudden ending of texts just commenced with 
the indefinite καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς or καὶ τὸ λοιπόν, and differing 
modes of referring to the same chapters,’ but he finds 
fault with his whole system of quotation, whether as 
egards the contents of, or the omissions from, the 
Marcionitish Gospel, for as in his time there were no 
numbers of chapters and verses, he does not take the 
smallest trouble to identify quotations,® the whole method 
being most misleading.® The difficulty, however, does 
not end here, for Volkmar himself says: “The ground 
for a certain fixture of the text of the Marcionitish 
Gospel, however, seems completely taken away by the 
fact that Tertullian and Epiphanius, in their statements 

1 Etwas ganz Anderes aber ist es mit den Angaben des Epiphanius 
iiber das vom Lucas-Evangelium bei Marcion, Bewahrte. "Wahrend er 
im Bericht iiber die Abweichungen Buchstaben-genaw sein will und er es 
auch bis auf jene beiden Ausnahmen ist, kommt es ihm hinsichtlich jener 
so sehr nur auf den Inhalt des von Marcion Stehngelassenen im Allge- 
meinen an, dass ganz wortliche Anfihrungen nur zu den Ausnahmen 
gehoren, iberall aber, wo Stellen von grésserm Umfang bemerkt werden 
sollen, jener nicht bloss so abkiirzenden sondern auch sehr freien 
Citationsweise Platz machen und wir auch nirgends darauf rechnen 


kénnen, dass so gerade, wie es Epiph. citirt, die Stelle bei Marcion 
wortlich gelautet habe. Volkmar, Das Ey. Marcion’s, p. 48 f.; cf. p. 34. 


2 Ib., p. 33. 3 Ib., p. 33 f. 
4 Jb,, p. 84. ° 1b, p. S44 £3 cf. p. 22. 
6 Tb., p. 36 ἢ 7 Ib., p. 34 f. 


8 Tb., p. 33 ff. : 9 [b., p. 88 ff. 


MARCION. 99 


regarding its state, not merely repeatedly seem to, but 
in part actually do, directly contradict each other.”? 
Hahn endeavours to explain some of these contradic- 
tions by imagining that later Marcionites had 
altered the text of their Gospel, and that Epiphanius 
had -the one form and Tertullian another ;? but 
such a doubt only renders the whole of the state- 
ments regarding the work more uncertain and insecure. 
That it is not without some reason, however, appears 
from the charge which Tertullian brings against the 
disciples of Marcion: “for they daily alter it (their 
Gospel) as they are daily refuted by us.” In fact, we 
have no assurance whatever that the work upon which 
Tertullian and Epiphanius base their charge against 
Marcion of falsification and mutilation of Luke was 
Marcion’s original Gospel at all, and we certainly have 
no historical evidence on the point.* 

The question, moreover, arises, whether Tertullian and 
indeed Epiphanius had his Gospel in any shape before 
them when they wrote, or merely Marcion’s work, the 
“ Antithesis.”* In commencing his onslaught on 
Marcion’s Gospel, Tertullian says: ‘“ For of the Com- 
mentators whom we possess, Marcion seems (videtur) to 
have selected Luke, which he mutilates.”’® This is a 


' Volkmar, Das Ey. Marcion’s, p. 22 f., p. 46 ff.; Theol. Jahrb., 1854, 
p. 106. 

2 Hahn, Das Ey. Marcion’s, p. 169 ; ef. Neudecker, Einl. N. T., p. 82. 

3. Nam et quotidie reformant illud, prout a nobis quotidie revincuntur. 
Ady. Mare., iv. 5; cf. Dial. de recta in deum fide, ὃ ὅ ; Orig., Opp., i. 
p. 867. 

* Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., i. p. 262 f.; cf. Volkmar, Theol. Jahrb., 
1854, p. 106 f. 

° Hichhorn, ἜΠΗ]. N. T., i. p. 45, anm. i.; cf. p. 77 f., p. 83; Schwegler, 
Das nachap. Zeit., i. p. 279 f. 

δ Nam ex iis commentatoribus, quos habemus, Lucam yidetur Marcion 
elegisse, quem czederet. Ady. Mare,, iy. 2. 


τς 


Δ ὦ 


100 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


very uncertain expression for so decided a controver- 
slalist, if he had been able to speak more positively.’ 
We have seen that in some instances it is admitted that 
Epiphanius clearly wrote without the Gospel before him, 
and also without comparing Luke, and it is also conceded 
that Tertullian at least had not the Canonical Gospel, 
but in professing to quote Luke evidently does so from 
memory, and approximates his text to Matthew, with 
which Gospel, like most of the Fathers, he was better 
acquainted.” How superficial and hasty the proceeding 
of these Fathers was, and how little reliance can be placed 
upon their statements, is evident from the fact that both 
Tertullian and Epiphanius reproach Marcion with erasing 
passages from the Gospel of Luke, which never were in 
Luke at all? Tertullian says: “ Marcion, you must also 
remove this from the Gospel : ‘I am not sent but unto the 
lost sheep of the house of Israel, * and : ‘ It is not meet to 
take the children’s bread, and give it to dogs,’® in order, 
be it known, that Christ may not seem to be an 
Israelite.”® The lightness and inaccuracy with which 
the “ Great African” proceeds are all the better illustrated 
by the fact, that not only does he accuse Marcion falsely, 
but he actually defines the motives for which he ex- 
punged a passage which never existed, for, in the same 
chapter, he also similarly accuses Marcion of erasing, “as 


1 Kichhorn, Einl. N. T., i. p. 78, anm. g. p. 83; ef. Hilgenfeld, Die Evv. 
Justin’s, p. 447, anm. 1. 

3 Volkmar, Das Ey. Marcion’s, p. 30 f. ; cf. 43. 

3 Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., i. p. 278 f.; Eichhorn, Einl. N. T., 1. 
p. 45 f., anm. 1. cf, p. 77; Volkmar, Das Ey. Marcion’s, p. 43; cf. Hahn, 
Das Ey. Marcion’s, p. 264. 

4 Matt. xv. 24. 5 Ib., xv. 26. 

6 Marcion, aufer etiam illud de evangelio : non sum missus, nisi ad 
oves perditas domus Israel; et: non est auferre panem filiis et dare eum 
canibus, ne scilicet Christus Israelis videretur. Ady. Marc., iy. 7. 


MARCION, 101 


an interpolation,”! the saying that Christ had not come 
to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfil. them,? 
and he actually repeats the same charge on two other 
occasions.? Epiphanius commits the same mistake of 
reproaching Marcion with omitting from Luke what is 
only found in Matthew.* We have, in fact,no guarantee 
of the accuracy or trustworthiness of any of their 
statements. 

We have said enough, we trust, to show that the 
sources for the reconstruction of a text of Marcion’s 
Gospel are most unsatisfactory, and no one who atten- 
tively studies the analysis of Hahn, Ritschl, Volkmar, 
Hilgenfeld, and others, who have examined and _ sys- 
tematized the data of the Fathers, can fail to be struck 
by the uncertainty which prevails throughout, the almost 
continuous vagueness and consequent opening, nay, 
necessity, for conjecture, and the absence of really certain 
indications. The Fathers had no intention of showing 
what Marcion’s text actually was, and their object being 
solely dogmatic and not critical, their statements are very 
insufficient for the purpose.® The reconstructed texts, as 
might be expected, differ from each other, and one 
Editor finds the results of his predecessors incomplete or 
unsatisfactory,® although naturally at each successive 
attempt, the materials previously collected and adopted, 
have contributed to an apparently more complete result. 
After complaining of the incompleteness and uncertainty 

1 Hoc enim Marcion ut additum erasit. Ady. Mar., iv. 7. 

2 Matt. v. 17. 8 Ady. Mare., iy. 9, 36.. 

4 Heer., xlii. p. 322 f., Ref. 1; cf. Luke y. 14; Matt. viii. 4. 

5 Kirchhofer, Quellensamml., p. 361, anm. 10, p. 362 f.; anm. 15, 
a Bich Das Ey. Marcion’s, p. 55 f. ; Volkmar, Das Evy. Marc., p. 5 f., 


p- 19 ff. ; Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. Justin’s, p. 444 f., p. 394 f. ; Theol. Jahrb., 
1853, p. 194 f., p. 211 f. 


102 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


οὗ the statements of Tertullian and Epiphanius, Ritschl 
says: “ We have thus so little of firm material from 
which to construct a hypothesis, that rather through 
first setting up a hypothesis may we fix the remains of 
the Gospel from Tertullian.”' Hilgenfeld quotes this 
with approval, and adds: “ Of this, certainly, so much is 
right, that the matter of fact can no longer in all points 
be settled from external data which first can decide in 
many respects the general conclusion regarding this Gos- 
pel.”? Volkmar, in the introduction to his last compre- 
hensive work on Marcion’s Gospel, says: “ And, in fact, 
it is no wonder that for so long a time critics have disputed 
in so really pardonable a way regarding the protean 
question, for we have continued so uncertain as to the 
very basis (Fundament) itself,—the precise form of the 
text of the remarkable document,—that Baur has found 
full ground for rejecting, as unfounded, the presumption 
on which that finally-attained decision (his previous one) 
rested.” Critics of all shades of opinion are forced to 
admit that we have no longer the materials for any 
certain reconstruction of Marcion’s text, and, conse- 
quently, for an absolute settlement of the question from 
internal evidence.* 

Before proceeding to a closer examination of Marcion’s 
Gospel and the general evidence bearing upon it, it may 


1 Ritschl, Das Evy. Marcion’s, p. 55. 

? Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. Justin’s, p. 445. 

3 Volkmar, Das Ey. Marcion’s, 1852, p. 19 f. 

* Bleek, Einl. N. T., p. 126; Bunsen, Bibelwerk, viii. p. 565 ; Hilgen- 
feld, Theol. Jahrb., 1853, p. 194 ff., 211 ff.; Hug, Einl. N. T.,i. p. 58 ff. ; 
ef. Hahn, Das Ey. Marcion’s, p. 114 f.; Kirchhofer, Quellensamml., 
p- 361, anm. 10; Neudecker, Einl. N. T., p. 75 ff.; Reuss, Rey. de Théol., 
1857, p. 3; Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeitalter, i. p. 262 f.; Tischendorf, 
Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 60 f.; Volkmar, Das Ey. Marcion’s, 19 ff., 
22 ff. 


MARCION. 103 


be well here briefly to rtfer to the system of the 
Heresiarch whose high personal character exerted so 
powerful an influence upon his own time,! and whose 
views continued to prevail widely for a couple of cen- Ὁ 
turies after his death. It was the misfortune of Marcion 
to live in an age when Christianity had passed out of the 
pure morality of its infancy, when, untroubled by compli- 
cated questions of dogma, simple faith and pious enthu- 
siasm had been the one great bond of Christian brother- 
hood, into a phase of ecclesiastical development in which 
religion was fast degenerating into theology, and com- 
plicated doctrines were rapidly assuming that rampant 
attitude which led to so much bitterness, persecution, 
and schism. In later times Marcion might have been 
honoured as a reformer, in his own he was denounced as 
a heretic.? Austere and ascetic in his opinions, he 
aimed at superhuman purity, and although his clerical 
adversaries might scoff at his impracticable doctrines 
regarding marriage and the subjugation of the flesh, they 
have had their parallels amongst those whom the Church 
has since most delighted to honour, and at least the 
whole tendency of his system was markedly towards the 
side of virtue. It would of course be foreign to our 
purpose to enter upon any detailed statement of its 
principles, and we must confine ourselves to such par- 
ticulars only as are necessary to an understanding of the 
question before us. 


1 Credner, Beitriige, i. p. 40; Schleiermacher, Sammtl. Werke, viii. ; 
Einl. N. T., 1845, p. 64; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 272 f. 

3 Cf. Neander, Allg. K. G., 1843, ii. p. 792, 815 f.; Schleiermacher, inl. 
N. T., 1845, p. 64. 

3 Gfrorer, Allg. K. G., i. p. 184 f.; Hagenbach, K. G., 1869, i. p. 134 f. ; 
Hug, Einl. N. T., i. p. 56 ff.; Milman, Hist. of Chr., 1867, ii. p. 77 ff. ; 
Neander, Allg. K. G., ii. p. 791 ff.; Volkmar, Das Ey. Marc., p. 25 ff. 


104 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


As we have already frequently had occasion to 
mention, there were two broad parties in the primitive 
Church, and the very existence of Christianity was in 
one sense endangered by the national exclusiveness of 
the people amongst whom it originated. The one party 
considered Christianity a mere continuation of the Law, 
and dwarfed it into an Israelitish institution, a narrow 
sect of Judaism; the other represented the glad tidings 
as the introduction of a new system applicable to all and 
supplanting the Mosaic dispensation of the Law by a 
universal dispensation of grace. These two parties were 
popularly represented in the early Church by the two 
Apostles Peter and Paul, and their antagonism is faintly 
revealed in the Epistle to the Galatians. Marcion, a 
gentile Christian, appreciating the true character of the 
new religion and its elevated spirituality, and profoundly 
impressed by the comparatively degraded and anthropo- 
morphic features of Judaism, drew a very sharp line of 
demarcation between them, and represented Christianity 
as an entirely new and separate system abrogating the 
old and having absolutely no connection with it. Jesus 
was not to him the Messiah of the Jews, the son of 
David come permanently to establish the Law and the 

Prophets, but a divine being sent to reveal to man ἃ 
- wholly new spiritual religion, and a hitherto unknown 
God of goodness and grace. The Creator (Δημιουργός), 
the God of the Old Testament, was different from the 
God of grace who had sent Jesus to reveal the Truth, to 
bring reconciliation and salvation to all, and to abrogate 
the Jewish God of the World and of the Law, who was 
opposed to the God and Father of Jesus Christ as Matter 
is to Spirit, impurity to purity. Christianity was in 
distinct antagonism to Judaism, the Spiritual God of 


MARCION. 105 


heaven, whose goodness and love were for the Universe, 
to the God of the World, whose chosen and peculiar 
people were the Jews, the Gospel of Grace to the dispen- 
sation of the Old Testament. Christianity, therefore, 
must be kept pure from the Judaistic elements humanly 
thrust into it, which were so essentially opposed to its 
whole spirit. 

Marcion wrote a work called “Antitheses ” (Αντιθέσεις), 
in which he contrasted the old system with the new, the 
God of the one with the God of the other, the Law with 
the Gospel, and in this he maintained opinions which 
anticipated many held in our own time. Tertullian 
attacks this work in the first three books of his treatise 
against Marcion, and he enters upon the discussion of its 
details with true theological vigour: “Now, then, ye 
hounds, yelping at the God of truth, whom the Apostle 
easts out,’ to all your questions! These are the bones 
of contention which ye gnaw!”? The poverty of the 
“ Great African’s ” arguments keeps pace with his abuse. 
Marcion objected : If the God of the Old Testament be 
good, prescient of the future, and able to avert evil, why 
did he allow man, made in his own image, to be deceived 
by the devil, and to fall from obedience of the Law into 
sin and death ?? How came the devil, the origin of 
lying and deceit, to be made at all?* After the fall, 
God became a judge both severe and cruel ; woman is at 
once condemned to bring forth in sorrow and to serve 
her husband, changed from a help into a slave, the 
earth is cursed which before was blessed, and man is 

1 Rey. xxii. 15. 

3 Jam hine ad queestiones, omnes canes, quos foras apostolus expellit, 
latrantes in deum veritatis. Hee sunt argumentationum ossa, quie 


obroditis. Adv. Marc., ii. 5. 
3 Tertullian, Ady. Marc., ii. 5; cf. 9. 4.78... 1. 10. 


106 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


doomed to labour and to death. The law was one of 
retaliation and not of justice—lex talionis—eye for eye, 
tooth for tooth, stripe for stripe.? And it was not con- 
sequent, for in contravention of the Decalogue, God is 
made to instigate the Israelites to spoil the Egyptians, 
and fraudulently rob them of their gold and silver ; to 
incite them to work on the Sabbath by ordering them to 
carry the ark for eight days round Jericho ;* to break 
the second commandment by making and setting up the 
brazen serpent and the golden cherubim.® Then God is 
inconstant, electing men, as Saul and Solomon, whom he 
subsequently rejects ;° repenting that he had set up 
Saul, and that he had doomed the Ninevites,’ and so on. 
God calls out: Adam, where art thou? inquires whether 
he had eaten the forbidden fruit, asks of Cain where his 
brother was, as if he had not yet heard the blood of Abel 
crying from the ground, and did not already know all 
these things.* Anticipating the results of modern criti- 
cism, Marcion denies the applicability to Jesus of the 
so-called Messianic prophecies. The Emmanuel of 
Isaiah (vii. 14, cf. viii. 4) is not Christ ;° the “ Virgin ἢ 
his mother is simply a “young woman” according 
to Jewish phraseology, and the sufferings of the 
Servant of God (Isaiah 111. 13—lii. 9) are not pre- 
dictions of the death of Jesus.’ There is a complete 
severance between the Law and the Gospel, and the 
God of the latter is the Antithesis of that of the 


1 Tertullian, Ady. Mare., 11. 11. 2 7}., ii. 18. 

3 Jb., ii. 20. Tertullian introduces this by likening the Marcionites 
to the cuttle-fish, like which ‘‘ they vomit the blackness of blasphemy ” 
(tenebras blasphemiz intervomunt), 1. c. 

4 10., ii. 21. 5. Tb., ii, 22. 6 Tb., ii. 23. 

7 Τὸ, ti. 24. 8. 1b., ii. 25. 9 Adv. Marc., iii. 12. 

0 Tb., iii. 13. a δι 1, 17; 18. 


-MARCION.. 107 


former.': “The one was perfect, pure, beneficent, pas- 
sionless ; the other, though not unjust by nature, in- 
fected by matter,—subject to all the passions of man,— 
cruel, changeable; the New Testament, especially as 
remodelled by Marcion,? was holy, wise, amiable ; the 
Old Testament, the Law, barbarous, inhuman, contra- 
dictory, and detestable.” 

Marcion ardently maintained the doctrine of the im- 
purity of matter, and he carried it to its logical conclusion, 
both in speculation and practice. He, therefore, assert- 
ing the incredibility of an incarnate God, denied the cor- 
poreal reality of the flesh of Christ. His body was a mere 
semblance and not of human substance, was not born of 
a human mother, and the divine nature was not degraded 
by contact with the flesh.* Marcion finds in Paul the 
purest promulgator of the truth as he understands it, 
and emboldened by the Epistle to the Galatians, in which 
that Apostle rebukes even Apostles for “not walking 
uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel,” he 
accuses the other Apostles of having depraved the pure 
form of the Gospel doctrines delivered to them by 
Jesus,> “mixing up matters of the Law with the words 
of the Saviour.”® 

Tertullian accuses Marcion of having written the work 
in which he details the contrasts between Judaism and 
Christianity, of which we have given the briefest sketch, 


1 Ady. Mare., iv. 1. 

2 We give this quotation as a résumé by an English historian and divine, 
but the idea of the ‘‘ New Testament remodelled by Marcion,” is a mere 
ecclesiastical imagination. * 

3 Milman, Hist. of Christianity, 1867, ii. p. 77 f. 

4 Tertullian, Ady. Marc., iii. 8 ff. 

5 Ady. Marc., iy. 3. 

6 Apostolos enim admiscuisse ea que sunt legalia salyatoris verbis. 
Trenceus, Ady. Heer., iii. 2, § 2 ; of. iii, 12, ὃ 12. 


108 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


as an introduction and encouragement to belief in his 
Gospel, which he ironically 6815. “the Gospel according 
to the Antithesis”! and the charge which the Fathers 
bring against Marcion is that he laid violent hands on 
the Canonical Gospel of Luke, and manipulated it to 
suit his own views. “For certainly the whole aim 
which he has elaborated in drawing up the ‘ Anti- 
thesis, ” says Tertullian, “amounts to this: that he 
may prove a disagreement between the Old and New 
Testament, so that his own Christ may be separated 
from the Creator, as of the other God, as alien from the 
Law and the Prophets. For this purpose it is certain 
that he has erased whatever was contrary to his own 
opinion, as though in conspiracy with the Creator it 
had been interpolated by his partisans, but has re- 
tained everything consistent with his own opinion.’’? 
The whole hypothesis that Marcion’s Gospel is a muti- 
lated version of our third Synoptic in fact rests upon 
this accusation. It is obvious that if it can not be 
shown that Marcion’s Gospel was our Canonical Gospel 
merely garbled by the Heresiarch for dogmatic reasons 
in the interest of his system,—for there could not be any 
other conceivable reason for tampering with it,—the 
claim of Marcion’s Gospel to the rank of a more original 
and authentic work than Luke’s acquires double force. 
We must, therefore, inquire into the character of the 
variations between the so-called heretical, and the 


1 Ady. Marc., iv. 1. 

2 Certe enim totum, quod elaboravit, etiam’ Antitheses preestruendo, in 
hoc cogit, ut veteris et novi testamenti diversitatem constituat, proinde 
Christum suum a creatore separaturus ut dei alterius, ut alienum legis et 
prophetarum. Certe propterea contraria quieque sententiz sus erasit, 
conspirantia cum creatore, quasi ab adsertoribus eius intexta; compe- 
tentia autem sententicze suze reseryavit. Ady. Marc., iy, 6. 


MARCION. 109 


Canonical Gospels, and see how far the hypothesis of the 
Fathers accords with the contents of Marcion’s Gospel so 
far as we are acquainted with it. 

At the very outset we are met by the agile pheno- 
menon, that both Tertullian and Epiphanius, who accuse 
Marcion of omitting everything which was unfavourable, 
and retaining only what was favourable to his views, 
undertake to refute him out of what remains in his 
Gospel. Tertullian says: “It will be proved that he 
has shown the same defect of blindness of heresy both 
in that which he has erased and that which he has 
retained.” Epiphanius also confidently states that, out 
of that which Marcion has allowed to remain of the 
Gospel, he can prove his fraud and imposture, and 
thoroughly refute him. Now if Marcion mutilated 
Luke to so little purpose as this, what was the use 
of his touching it at all? He is known as an able 
man, the most influential and distinguished of all the 
heretical leaders of the second century, and it seems 
absurd to suppose that, on the theory of his erasing or 
altering all that contradicted his system, he should haye 
done his work so imperfectly.2 The Fathers say that he 
endeavours to get rid of the contradictory passages 
which remain by a system of false interpretation ; but 
surely he would not have allowed himself to be driven 
to this extremity, leaving weapons in the hands of his 
opponents, when he might so easily have excised the 
obnoxious texts along with the rest? It is admitted by 
critics, moreover, that passages said to have been 


Δ Tune et illa constabit eodem vitio heretics cacitatis erasa, quo et 
heec reservata. Ady. Marc., iy. 6. 

? Her., xlii. 9 f., p. 8108 

9 Fichhors: Einl. ND, ip. 75, 


110 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


omitted by Marcion are often not opposed to his system 
at all, and sometimes, indeed, even in favour of it;' 
and on the other hand, that passages which were 
retained are contradictory to his views.? This is not 
intelligible upon any theory of arbitrary garbling of a 
Gospel in the interest of a system. 

It may be well to give a few instances of the anoma- 
lies presented, upon this hypothesis, by Marcion’s text. 
It is generally agreed that the verses Luke vii. 29—35, 
were wanting in Marcion’s Gospel.? Hahn accounts for 
the omission of verses 29, 30, regarding the baptism of 
John, because they represented the relation of the 
Baptist to Jesus in a way which Marcion did not admit.‘ 
But as he allowed the preceding verses to remain, such 
a proceeding was absurd. In verse 26 he calls John a 
prophet, and much more than a prophet, and in the 
next verse (27) quotes respecting him the words of 
Malachi ii. 1: “This is he of whom it is written: 
Behold I send my messenger before thy face, which 
shall prepare thy way before thee.’ It is impossible 

1 Baur, Unters. kan. Evv., p. 423 ff.; Hilgenfeld, Die Evv. Just., 
p. 444 ff.; Nicolas, Et. sur les Ey. Apocr., p. 151 ; Ritsch?, Theol. Jahrb., 
1851, p. 529 f.; Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., 1. p. 263 ff., 273 ff.; De 
Wette, Einl. N. T., p. 132; Volkmar, Das Ey. Marcion’s, p. 107 ff. ; ef. 
Theol. Jahrb., 1850, p. 214 f. 

2 Baur, Unters. kan. Evv., p. 423 ff. ; Guericke, Gesammtgesch. N. T., 
p. 231,anm. 1; cf. Hbrard, Wiss krit. ἃ. evang. Gesch., p. 810, anm. 2; 
Eichhorn, Einl. N. T., i. p. 75 ff.; Kirchhofer, Quellensamml., p. 362, 
anm. 13; Neander, Allg. K. G., ii. p. 816; Nicolas, Et. sur les Ey. Apocr., 
p- 151 ff; Ritschl, Theol. Jahrb., 1851, p. 529 f. ; Schwegler, Das nachap. 
Zeit., i. p. 263 ff., 273 ff. ; Volkmar, Das Ev. Marcion’s, p. 107 ff. ; Hilgen- 
feld, Die Evv. J., p. 444 ff. 

3 Tertullian and Epiphanius pass them over in silence. Cf. Hahn, Ev. 
Marc. in Thilo, Cod. Apocr. N. T., p. 418, anm. 24; Ritschl, Das Ev. 
Mare., p. 78 f.; Volkmar, Das Ey. Ματο., p. 156 f.; Hilgenfeld, though 
somewhat doubtful, seems to agree: Die Evy. Justin’s, p. 407; cf. 441; 


De Wette, Hinl. N. T., p. 125. 
4 Das Ey. Marc., p. 147. 


MARCION. 111 


on any reasonable ground to account for the retention 
of such honourable mention of the Baptist, if verses 29, 
30 were erased for such dogmatic reasons.’ Still more 
incomprehensible on such a hypothesis is the omission 
of Luke vii. 31—35, where that generation is likened unto 
children playing in the market-place and calling to each 
other : ‘‘ We piped unto you and ye danced not,” and 
Jesus continues: “For John is come neither eating 
bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil 
(34). The Son of Man is come, eating and drinking; 
and ye say: Behold a gluttonous man and a winebibber, 
a friend of publicans and sinners.” Hahn attributes the 
omission of these verses to the. sensuous representation 
they give of Jesus as eating and drinking.? What was 
the use of eliminating these verses when he allowed to 
remain unaltered verse 36 of the same chapter,? in 
which Jesus is invited to eat with the Pharisee, and 
goes into his house and sits down to meat? or v. 
29—35,* in which Jesus accepts the feast of Levi, and 
defends his disciples for eating and drinking against 
the murmurs of the Scribes and Pharisees? or xv. 2,° 
where the Pharisees say of him: “This man re- 
ceiveth sinners and eateth with them?” How absurdly 


1 Ritsehl, Das Ey. Marc., p. 78 f.; Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeitalter, i. 
p. 263; De Wette, Kinl. N. T., p. 132; οἵ, Volkmar, Das Ey. Marcion, 
p. 156; Hilgenfeld, Die Evv. Justin’s, p. 406 f.; Tertullian, Ady. Marc., 
iv. 18; Epiphanius, Heer., xlii., Sch. viii. f. ; Ref. viii. f. 

? Das Ey. M., p. 147; Evang. Mare. in Thilo, Cod. ap. N. T., p. 418, © 
anm. 24, 33; Volkmar, Das Ey. Marc., p. 156; Ritschl, Das Ey. Marc., 
p. 78 f.; of. Hilgenfeld, Die Evv. Justin’s, p. 407. 

3 Hahn, Evang. Marc, Thilo, p. 418, 419, anm. 25; Volkmar, Das Ev. 
Marc., p. 157. 

* Hahn, Ev. Mare. in Thilo, p. 408; Volkmar, Das Ey. Marc., p. 155; 
Tertullian, Ady. Marc., iy. 11. 

δ Hahn, Ey. M. in Thilo, p. 451; Volkmar, Das Ey. Marc., p. 162; cf. 
Tertullian, Ady, M., iy. 32. 


112 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


futile the omission of the one passage for dogmatic 
reasons, while so many others were allowed to remain 
unaltered.’ 

The next passage to which we must refer is one of the 
most important in connection with Marcion’s Docetic 
doctrine of the person of Jesus. It is said that he 
emitted viii. 19: “And his mother and his brethren 
came to him and could not come at him for the crowd,” 
and that he inserted in verse 21, tis μου μήτηρ καὶ οἱ 
ἀδελφοί ; making the whole episode in his Gospel read 
(20): “And it was told him by certain which said: 
Thy mother and thy brethren stand without desiring 
to see thee: 21. But he answered and said unto them: 
Who are my mother and brethren? My mother and 
my brethren are these,” &c.2_ The omission of verse 19 
is said to have been made because, according to Marcion, 
Christ was not born like an ordinary man, and conse- 
quently had neither mother nor brethren.* The mere 
fact, however, that Marcion retains verse 20, in which 
the crowd simply state as a matter fully recognized the 
relationship of those who were seeking Jesus, renders the 
omission of the preceding verse useless,* except on the 
ground of mere redundancy. 

Marcion is reported not to have had the word αἰώνιος 
in. x. 25,5 so that the question of the lawyer simply ran : 

1 Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., i. p. 263; De Wette, Eiml. N. T., 

2 
- aie Ey. M. in Thilo, p. 421, anm. 26; Volkmar, Das Ey. Marc., 
p- 150; Epiph., Heer., xlii., Sch. 12; Tertullian, Adv. Marc., iv. 19, de 
carne Christi, ὃ 7; De Wette, Einl. N. T., p. 125; Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. 
Justin’s, p. 408 f., 441; Baur, Das Markusey., p. 192 f. ; 

3 Hahn, Das Ey. M., p. 148 f.; Ev. M. in Thilo, p. 421, anm. 27; cf. 
Volkmar, Das Ey. M., p. 56 ἢ. 

4 Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., i. p. 264. 


5. Hahn, Ev. M. in Thilo, p. 434 ; Volkmar, Das Ey. M., p. 159; Hil- 
genfeld, Die Evv. J., p. 441; De Wette, Einl. N. T., p. 126. 


a 


MARCION. 113 


“ Master, what shall I do to inherit life?” The omission 
of this word is supposed to have been made in order to 
make the passage refer back to the God of the Old 
Testament, who promises only long life on earth for 
keeping the commandments, whilst it is only in the 
Gospel that eternal life is promised.’ But in the corre- 
sponding passage, xvill. 18,2 the αἰώνιος is retained, and 
the question of the ruler is: “Good master, what shall I 
do to inherit eternal life?” It has been argued that 
the introduction of the one thing still lacking (verse 22) 
after the keeping of the law and the injunction to sell all 
and give to the poor, changes the context and justifies 
the use there of eternal life as the reward for fulfilment 
of the higher commandment. This reasoning, however, 
seems to us without grounds, and merely an ingenious 
attempt to account for an embarrassing fact. In reality 
the very same context occurs in the other passage, for, 
explaining the meaning of the word “ neighbour,” love 
to whom is enjoined as part of the way to obtain “life,” 
Jesus inculcates the very same duty as in xviii. 22, 
of distributing to the poor (cf. x. 28—37). There 
seems, therefore, no reasonable motive for omitting the 
word from the one passage whilst retaining it in the 
other.‘ 

The passage in Luke xi. 29—32, from the concluding 
words of verse 29, “but the sign of the prophet Jonah” 


1 Hahn, Das Ey. M., p. 161 ; Ev. M. in Thilo, p. 435, an. 42; Volkmar, 
Das Ey. M., p. 58, p. 159; Tertullian, Ady. M. iv. 25; Baur, Das 
Markusev., p. 193. 

3 Hahn, Evy. M. in Thilo, p. 461; Epiph., Heor., xlii. Sch. 50; Ter- 
tullian, Adv. M, iv. 36. 

3 Volkmar, Das Ev. M., p. 58; Hilgenfeld, Die Evv. Just., p. 426; 
Baur, Das Markusey., p. 193. 

4 Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., i. p. 264. 

VOL. Il. I 


114 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


was not found in Marcion’s Gospel. This omission is 
accounted for on the ground that such a respectful 
reference to the Old Testament was quite contrary to 
the system of Marcion.? Verses 49—51 of the same 
chapter, containing the saying of the “ Wisdom of God,” 
regarding the sending of the prophets that the Jews 
might slay them, and their blood be required of that 
generation, were also omitted* The reason given for 
this omission is, that the words of the God of the Old 
Testament are too respectfully quoted and adopted to 
suit the views of the Heretic.t Both Hilgenfeld® and 
Baur® agree that the words in verses 31—32, “ Anda 
greater than Solomon—than Jonah is here,” might well 
have been allowed to remain in the text, and indeed the 
superiority of Christ over the kings and prophets of the 
Old Testament which is asserted directly suits and 
supports the system of Marcion. How much less, how- 
ever, is the omission of these passages to be explained 
upon any intelligent dogmatic principle, when we find 
in Marcion’s text the passage in which Jesus justifies 
his conduct on the Sabbath by the example of David 
(vi. 3—4),” and that in which he assures the disciples of 
the greatness of their reward in heaven for the persecu- 


1 Hahn, Ey. M. in Thilo, 438, anm. 46; Volkmar, Das Ev. M., p. 151; 
De Wette, Einl. N. T., p. 126; Hilgenfeld, Die Evv. J., p. 441; Epiph., 
Heer., xlti. Sch. 25; cf. Ref. It is conjectured that the words πονηρά 
ἐστι were also wanting. Epiphanius does not use them, but he is 
thought to be quoting ‘‘ freely.” The words, however, equally fail in 
Codex 235. 

? Hahn, Das Ey. M., p. 163 ; Volkmar, Das Ev. M., p. 58. 

3 Hahn, Das Ey. M. in Thilo, 439, anm. 47; Volkmar, Das Ey. M., 
p- 151. 

* Hahn, Das Ev. M., p. 165; Ἐν. M. in Thilo, 440, anm. 47 ; Volkmar, 
Das Ey. M., p. 58 f. Ἶ 

35. Die Evy. J., p. 453. 5 Das Markuseyv., p. 194. 

7 Hahn, Ey. M. in Thilo, 410; Volkmar, Das Ey. M., 155. 





MARCION. 115 


tions they were to endure : “ For behold your reward is 
ereat in heaven: for after the same manner did their 
fathers unto the prophets ” (vi. 28).} As we have seen, 
Jesus is also allowed to quote an Old Testament pro- 
phecy (vii. 27) as fulfilled in the coming of John to 
prepare the way for himself. The questions which Jesus 
puts to the Scribes (xx. 41—44) regarding the Christ being 
David’s son, with the quotation from Ps. ex. 1, which 
Marcion is stated to have retained,? equally refute the 
supposition as to his motive for “omitting” xi. 29 ff. 
It has been argued with regard to the last passage that 
Jesus merely uses the words of the Old Testament to 
meet his own theory,? but the dilemma in which Jesus 
places the Scribes is clearly not the real object of his 
question : its aim is a suggestion of the true character 
of the Christ. But amongst his other sins with regard 
to Luke’s Gospel, Marcion is also accused of interpolat- 
ing it. And in what way? Why the Heresiarch who 
is so averse to all references to the Old Testament that 
he is supposed to erase them, actually, amongst his few 
interpolations, adds a reference to the Old Testament. 
Between xvii. 14 and 15 (some critics say in verse 18) 
Marcion introduced the verse which is found in Luke iv. 
27: “And many lepers were in Israel in the time of 
Elisha the prophet; and none of them was cleansed 
saving Naaman, the Syrian.”* Now is it conceivable 
that a man who inserts, as it is said, references to the 

1 Hahn, Ey. M. in Thilo, 412; Volkmar, Das Ey. M. 156. 

2 Hahn, in Thilo, 468 ; Volkmar, ἐδ.» p. 165. 

3 Volkmar, ib., p. 59 f.; Hilgenfeld, Die Ev. J., p. 453. 

4 Epiph., Heer., xlii. Sch. 48; Tertullian, Ady. M., iv. 85; Hahn, Ey. 
M. in Thilo, p. 457, anm. 67 ; De Wette, Hinl. N. T., p. 128 f.; Hilgenfeld, 
Die Evy. J., p. 424; Baur, Das Markusey., p. 213; Volkmar, Theol. 
Jahrb., 1850, p. 131; Das Ey. M., p. 163, p. 82 ff. ; Lichhorn, Einl. N. T., 


p. 77. 
12 


116 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


Old Testament into his text so gratuitously, can have 
been so inconsistent as to have omitted these passages 
because they contain similar references? We must say 
that the whole of the reasoning regarding these passages 
omitted and retained, and the fine distinctions which are 
drawn between them, are anything but convincing. A 
general theory being adopted, nothing is more easy than 
to harmonise everything with it in this way; nothing is 
more easy than to assign some reason, good or bad, 
apparently in accordance with the foregone conclusion, 
why one passage was retained, and why another was 
omitted, but in almost every case the reasoning might 
with equal propriety be reversed if the passages were so, 
and the retention of the omitted passage as well as the - 
omission of that retained be quite as reasonably justified. 
The critics who have examined Marcion’s Gospel do not 
trouble themselves to inquire if the general connection 
of the text be improved by the absence of passages 
supposed to be omitted, but simply try whether the 
supposed omissions are “ explainable on the ground of a 
dogmatic tendency in Marcion.”? In fact the argument 
throughout is based upon foregone conclusions, and 
rarely upon any solid grounds whatever. The retention 
of such passages as we have quoted above renders the 
omission of the other for dogmatic reasons quite pur- 
poseless.? pe 

The passage, xii. 6, 7, which argues that as the 
sparrows are not forgotten before God, and the hairs of 
our head are numbered, the disciples need not fear, was 
not found in Marcion’s Gospel. The supposed omission 


_ 1 Cf, Volkmar, Das Ev. M., p. 62. 

> Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., p. 264; Ritschl, Das. Ev. M., p. 87 f. 
, § Hahn, Ἐν. M. in Thilo, p. 441; Volkmar, Das Ey. M., p. 161, cf. 94; 
Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. J., p. 441; Theol. Jahrb., 1853, p. 204. 








MARCION. 117 


is explained on the ground that, according to Marcion’s 
system, God does not interest himself about such trifles 
as sparrows and the hairs of our head, but merely about 
souls.’ That such reasoning is absurd, however, is apparent 
from the fact, that Marcion’s text had verse 24 of the 
same chapter :? “Consider the ravens,” &c., &c., and 
“God feedeth them:” &c., and also v. 28,5 “ But if God 
so clothe the grass,” &., &., “how much more will he 
clothe you, O! ye of little faith 1 As no one ventures to 
argue that Marcion limited the providence of God to the 
ravens, and to the grass, but excluded the sparrows and 
the hair, no dogmatic reason can be assigned for the 
omission of the one, whilst the other is retained.* 

The first nine verses of ch. xii. were likewise absent 
from Marcion’s text,? wherein Jesus declares that like the 
Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mixed with their 
sacrifices (v. 1, 2), and the eighteen upon whom the 
tower in Siloam fell (v. 4), “except ye repent, ye shall 
all likewise perish,” (v. 3 and’5), and then recites the 
parable of the unfruitful fig-tree (v. 6—9), which the 
master of the vineyard orders to be cut down (v. 7), but 
then spares for a season (ν. 8, 9). The theory advanced 
to account for the asserted “omission” of these 

1 Hahn, Das Ev. M., p. 167; Ey. M. in Thilo, p. 441, anm. 49. 

3 Hahn, Ev. M. in Thilo, p. 442. 

3. Hahn, Ey. M.in Thilo, p. 443, anm. 51 ; Volkmar, Das Hy. M., p. 
160; De Wette, Kinl. N. T., p. 127. This verse was wanting according to 
Epiph., Sch., 31, but was in the text by the decided statement of Z'ertul- 
lian, Ady. M., iv. 29; Volkmar (Das Hy. M.., 46 ff.), and Hilgenfeld (Theol. 
Jahrb., 1853, p. 204), agree that this arose solely from an accidental 
absence of the verse in the copy of Epiphanius, 

* Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., i. p. 265; Ritschl, Das Ey. M., p. 91; 
cf. De Wette, Hinl. N. T., p. 132. 

δ Hahn, Ey. M. in Thilo, p. 446 ; Volkmar, Das Ey. M., p. 151. (He 
omits xili. 1—10); Hilgenfeld, Theol. Jahrb., 1853, p. 204. (He had pre- 


viously,—Die Ey. J., p. 441,—only admitted the absence of xiii. 1—5) ; 
De Wette, Hinl. N. T., i. p. 125 ἢ, 


118 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


verses is that they could not be reconciled with 
Marcion’s system, according to which the good God 
never positively punishes the wicked, but merely leaves 
them to punish themselves in that, by not accepting the 
proffered grace, they have. no part in the blessedness of 
Christians. In his earlier work, Volkmar distinctly 
admitted that the whole of this passage might be omitted 
without prejudice to the text of Luke, and that he could 
not state any ground, in connection with Marcion’s 
system, which rendered its omission either necessary or 
even conceivable. He then decided that the passage 
was not contained at all in the version of Luke, which 
Marcion possessed, but was inserted at a later period in 
our Codices.2 It was only on his second attempt to 
account for all omissions on dogmatic grounds that he 
argued as above. In like manner Hilgenfeld also, with 
Rettig, considered that the passage did not form part of 
the original Luke, so that here again Marcion’s text was 
free from a very abrupt passage, not belonging to the 
more pure and primitive Gospel* Baur recognizes not 
only that there is no dogmatic ground to explain the 
omission, but on the contrary, that the passage fully 
agrees with the system of Marcion.* The total insuffi- 
ciency of the argument to explain the omission, how- 
ever, is apparent from the numerous passages, which 
were allowed to remain in the text, which still more 
clearly outraged this part of Marcion’s system. In the 
parable of the great supper, xiv. 15—24, the Lord is 
angry (v. 21), and declares that none of those who were 

1 Hahn, Das Ey. M., p. 175; Ey. M. in Thilo, p. 446, anm. 55; Volk- 
mar, Das Ey. M., p. 64 f. 

2 Theol. Jahrb., 1850, p. 207 f. 


3 Die Ey. J., p. 470. 
4 Das Markusey., p. 195 f. 


MARCION, 119 


bidden should taste of his supper (v. 24). In xii. 5, 
Jesus warns his own disciples: “ Fear him, which after 
he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say 
unto you: fear him.” It is absurd to argue that Marcion 
here understands the God of the Old Testament, the 
Creator, for he would thus represent his Christ as fore- 
warning his own disciples to fear the power of that very 
Demiurge, whose reign he had come to terminate. Then 
again, in the parable of the wise steward, and the foolish 
servants, xii. 41 ff, he declares (v. 46), that the lord of 
the foolish servant “‘ will cut him in sunder, and will 
appoint him his portion with the unbelievers,” and 
(vs. 47, 48) that the servants shall be beaten with stripes, 
in proportion to their fault. In the parable of the 
nobleman who goes to a far country and leaves the ten 
pounds with his servants, xix. 11 ff, the lord orders his 
enemies, who would not that he should reign over them, 
to be brought and slain before him (v. 27). Then how 
very much there was in the Epistles of Paul, which he 
upheld, of a still more contradictory character. There is 
no dogmatic reason for such imconsistency." 

Marcion is aceused of having falsified xiii. 28 in the 
following manner: “There shall be weeping and gnash- 
ing of teeth, when ye shall see all the just (πάντας τοὺς 
δικαίους) in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves 
being thrust, and bound (καὶ κρατουμένους) without.” 
The substitution of “all the just” for “ Abraham, Isaac, 
and Jacob, and all the prophets,” is ome of those varia- 
tions which the supporter of the dogmatic theory greedily 
lays hold of, as bearing evident tokens of falsification in 
antijudaistic interest.2 But Marcion had in his Gospel 


1 Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., i. p. 265; Baur, Das Markusey. p. 195. 
3 Hahn, Das Ey. M., p. 177; Ey. M. in Thilo, p. 448, anm. 58; cf, 


120 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, xvi. 19—31, 
where the beggar is carried up into Abraham's bosom.’ 
And again, there was the account of the Transfiguration, 
ix. 28—-36, in which Moses and Elias are seen in con- 
verse with Jesus.?_ The alteration of the one passage for 
dogmatic reasons, whilst the parable of Lazarus is 
retained, would have been useless. Hilgenfeld, however, 
in agreement with Baur and Ritschl, has shown that 
Marcion’s reading πάντας τοὺς δικαίους is evidently the 
contrast to the ἐργάται τῆς ἀδικίας of the preceding 
verse, and is superior to the canonical version, which 
was either altered after Matth. vill. 12, or with the 
anti-Marcionitish object of bringing the rejected Patriarchs 
into recognition. The whole theory in this case again 
goes into thin air, and at is consequently weakened ἬΝ ποῦ 
destroyed in all. 

Marcion’s Gospel did not contain the parable of the 
Prodigal Son, xv. 11—23.* The omission of this passage, 


Volkmar, Das Ey. M., p. 62 f., and Hilgenfeld, Die Evv. J., p. 420, who 
explain the omission differently, and consider Hahn in error. 

1 Tertullian (Ady. M., iv. 34), gives an elaborate explanation of the in- 
terpretation by which Marcion does away with the offensive part of the 
parable, buf in this and every case erasure was surely more simple than 
explanation if Marcion erased anything at all. 

* Hakn, in verse 30 reads συνέστησαν for συνέλάλουν, the two men 
** stood ” with him instead of ““ talked” with him, asin Luke. This he 
derives from the obscure words of Tertullian, which, however, really refer 
to y. 32 (Ady. M. iv. 22), but Epiphanius (Sch. 17) has very distinctly 
the reading of Luke. Hahn omits y. 31 altogether, on the very un- 
decided ia of Tertullian and Epiphanius; Hahn, Ev. M. in Thilo, 
p- 427, anm. *; Das Ey. M., p. 154; Volkmar (Das Ev. Marc., p. 158, εἴ 
151), and Hilgenfeld (Die Evy. J., p. 411 f., 466 f.), prove that the reading 
was unaltered in v. 30, and that y. 31 stood in Marcion’s text. The whole 
discussion, as showing the uncertainty of the text, is very instructive. 
Cf. Ritschl, Das Ἐν. M., p. 80 ff. 

* Hilgenfeld, Die Evv. J., p. 470; Baur, Das Markusey., p. 206 f. ; 
Ritschl, Das Ev. M., p. 94 f. 

* Hakn, Ey. M.in Thilo, p. 452; Volkmar, Das Ev. M., p.162; Hil- 

genfeld, Die Evy. J., p. 441; De Wette, Enml. N. T., p. 128; Epiphanius, 


MARUION, 121 


which is universally recognized as in the purest Paulinian 
spirit, is accounted for partly on the ground. that a 
portion of it (v. 22—32) was repugnant to the ascetic 
discipline of Marcion, to whom the killing of the fatted 
calf, the feasting, dancing and merry-making, must have 
been obnoxious, and, partly because, understanding under 
the similitude of the elder son the Jews, and of the 
younger son the Gentiles, the identity of the God of the 
Jews and of the Christians would be recognized.! There 
is, however, the very greatest doubt admitted as to the 
interpretation which Marcion would he likely to put upon 
this parable, and certainly the representation which it 
gives of the Gentiles, not only as received completely on 
a par with the Jews, but as only having been lost for a 
time, and found again, is thoroughly in harmony with 
the teaching of Paul, who was held by Marcion to be the 
only true Apostle. It could not, therefore, have been 
repugnant to him. Any points of disagreement could ἢ 
very easily have been explained away, as his critics are 
so fond of asserting to be his practice in other passages.? 
As to the supposed dislike of Marcion for the festive 
character of the parable, what object could he have had 
for omitting this, when he retained the parable of the 


Heer., xlii. Sch. 42; Tertullian (Ady. Marc., iv. 32) passes it over in 
silence. 

1 Hahn, Das. Ev. M., p. 182; Ev. M. in Thilo, Ῥ. 462, anm. 62; Ols- 
hausen, Kctheit. ἃ. vier Can. Evv., 1823, p. 208 f. Hahn and Olshausen 
did not hold the second part of this explanation, but applied the parable 
merely to Judaic and Gentile Christians, under which circumstances critics 
would not admit reason for the omission. Volkmar, Das Evy. M., p. 66; 

. Baur, Das Markuseyv., p. 194 f. 

° Volkmar talks of the intentional omission of the parable by Marcion 
as being ‘‘ fully conceivable” (véllig begreiflich), but it is almost impos- 
sible to find anything for which a reason cannot be discovered if the 

-question asked be: ‘‘ Is the intentional omission on any ground conceiy- 
able ?” 


122 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


great supper, xiv. 15—24; the feast in the house of 
Levi, v. 27—32; the statements of Jesus eating with 
the Pharisees, vii. 36, xv. 22 If Marcion had any 
objection to such matters, he had still greater to mar- 
riage, and yet Jesus justifies his disciples for eating and 
drinking by the similitude of a marriage feast, himself 
being the bridegroom : v. 34, 35, “ Can ye make the sons 
of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with 
them? But the days will come when the bridegroom 
shall be taken away from them: then will they fast in 
those days.” And he bids his disciples to be ready “ like 
men that wait for their lord, when he shall return from 
the wedding,” (xii. 36), and makes another parable on a 
wedding feast (xiv. 7—10). Leaving these passages, it 
is impossible to see any dogmatic reason for excluding 
the others." 

The omission of a passage in every way so suitable 
to Marcion’s system as the parable of the vineyard, 
xx. 9—16, is equally unintelligible upon the dogmatic 
theory. 

Marcion is accused of falsifying xvi. 17, by altering 
Tov νόμου to τῶν λόγων μου," making the passage read : 
“ But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than for 
one tittle of my words to fail.” The words in the 
canonical Gospel, it is argued, were too repugnant to 
him to be allowed to remain unaltered, representing as 
they do the permanency of “the Law” to which he 
was opposed.* Upon this hypothesis why did he leave 


1 Schwegler, Das nachap Zeitalter, i. p. 266 f.; Nicolas, Et. sur les Ey. 
apocr., p. 153; οἵ. Hilgenfeld, Die Evv. J., p. 454. - 

2 Volkmar, Das Ey. M., p. 151; Hilgenfeld, Die Evv. J., p.441; Hahn, 
reads τῶν λόγων τοῦ κυρίουι Ey. M. in Thilo, p. 454; Das Ey. M., p. 185. 

3 Hahn, Ey. M. in Thilo, p. 454, anm. 63; Das Ey. M., p. 185; Volk- 
mar, Das Ey. M., p. 65 f. 


tee ta ee 


MARCION. 123 


x. 25 f. (especially v. 26) and xviii. 18 ff, in which the 
keeping of the law is made essential to life? or xvi. 14, 
where Jesus bids the lepers conform to the requirements 
of the law? or xvi. 29, where the answer is given to 
the rich man pleading for his relatives: “They have 
Moses and the prophets, let them hear them”?! Hilgen- 
feld, however, with others, admits that it has been fully 
proved that the reading in Marcion’s text is not an 
arbitrary alteration at all, but the original expression, 
and that the version in Luke xvi. 17, on the contrary, 
is a variation of the original introduced to give the 
passage an anti-Marcionitish tendency.? Here, again, it 
is clear that the supposed falsification is rather a 
falsification on the part of the editor of the third canonical 
Gospel.* 

One more illustration may be given. Marcion is 
accused of omitting from xix. 9 the words: “forasmuch 
as he also is a son of Abraham,” (καθότι καὶ αὐτὸς vids 
᾿Αβραάμ ἐστιν) leaving merely: “And Jesus said unto 
him: This day is salvation come to this house.”* 
Marcion’s system, it is said, could not tolerate the phrase 
which was erased.2 It was one, however, eminently 
in the spirit of his Apostle Paul, and in his favourite 
Epistle to the Galatians he retained the very parallel 

1 Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., i. p. 267; Lichhorn, Einl. N. T., 
‘ canis Die Ἐν. J., p. 470; Ritschl, Das Ey. M., p. 91 f.; Baur, 
Unters. kan. Evy., p. 402; Das Markusey., p. 196 ff. Bawr, in the last- 
mentioned work, argues that even Tertullian himself (Ady. M., iv. 33), 
represents Marcion’s reading as the original. 

8 Ritschl, Das Ev. M., p. 98. 

* Hahn, Evy. M. in Thilo, p. 463; Volkmar, Das By. M., p. 152; Hil- 
genfeld, Die Evy. J., p. 442. 

5 Hahn, Das Ey. M., p. 195; Evy. M. in Thilo, p. 463, anm. 74. ‘‘ Qui 


non potuit ferre Marcion, cujus Christus potius seryayit eum quem filii 
Abrahami damnabant.” 


124 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


passage iii. 7, “Ye know therefore that they which are 
of faith, these are the sons of Abraham.”! How could 
he, therefore, find any difficulty in such words addressed 
to the repentant Zacchzeus, who had just believed in the 
mission of Christ? Moreover, why should he have 
erased the words here, and left them standing in xii. 16, 
in regard to the woman healed of the “spirit of infir- 
mity :” “and ought not this woman, being a daughter of 
Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo! these eighteen 
years, to be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day ?” 
No reasoning can explain away the substantial identity 
of the two phrases. Upon what principle of dogmatic 
interest, then, can M arcion have erased the one while he 
retained the other ?? 

We have taken a very few passages for illustration 
and treated them very briefly, but it may roundly be 
said that there is scarcely a single variation of Marcion’s 
text regarding which similar reasons are not given, and 
which do not present similar anomalies in consequence 
of what has elsewhere been retaied.* As we have 
already stated, much that is really contradictory to 
Marcion’s system was found in his text, and much which 
either is not opposed or is favourable to it is omitted 


1 Cf. Rom. iy. 11, 12, 16. It has been argued from Tertullian’s 
obscure reference that Marcion omitted the last phrase of Gal. iii. 7, but 
Epiph. does not say so, and the statement of Jerome (Comm. in Ep. ad 
Gal.) was evidently not from the direct source, but was probably derived 
from a hasty perusal of Tertullian, and there is no real ground whatever 
for affirming it. Even Tertullian himself does not positively do so. 
Ritschl, Das Ey. M., p. 154 ff.; Baur, Unters. kan. Evy., p. 412 ff.; 
Westcott, On the Canon, p. 274. 

? Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., i. p. 268; Mitschl, Das Ey. M., p. 98 f.; 
cf. Hilgenfeld, Die Evv. J., p. 427. 

3 Baur, Unters. kan. Evy., p. 411 ff.; Das Markusey., p. 191 f.; 
Nicolas, Et. sur les Ey. apocr., p. 155; Ritschl, Theol. Jahrb., 1851, 
p- 530 ff. ; cf. Das Ey. M., p.46; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 274 f. 


MARCION. 125 


and cannot be set down to arbitrary alteration. More- 
over, it has never been shown that the supposed altera- 
tions were made by Marcion himself,’ and till this is 
done the pith of the whole theory is wanting. There is 
no principle of intelligent motive which can account for 
the anomalies presented by Marcion’s Gospel, considered 
as a version of Luke mutilated and falsified in the 
interest of his system. The contrast of what is retained 
with that which is omitted reduces the hypothesis ad 
absurdam. Marcion was too able a man to do his work 
so imperfectly, if he had proposed to assimilate the 
Gospel of Luke to his own views. As it is avowedly 
necessary to explain away by false and forced interpreta- 
tions requiring intricate definitions,? very much of what 
was allowed to remain in his text, it is inconceivable 
that he should not have cut the Gordian knot with the 
same unscrupulous knife with which it is asserted he 
excised the rest. The ingenuity of most able and learned 
critics endeavouring to discover whether a motive in 
the interest of his system cannot be conceived for every 
alteration, is, notwithstanding the evident scope afforded 
by the procedure, often foiled. Yet a more elastic hypo- 
thesis could not possibly have been advanced, and that 
the text obstinately refuses to fit into it, is even more 
than could have been expected. Marcion is like a 
prisoner at the bar without witnesses, who is treated 
from the first as guilty, attacked by able and passionate 
adversaries who warp every possible circumstance against 
him, and yet who cannot be convicted. The foregone 
conclusion by which every supposed omission from his 
Gospel is explained, is, as we have shown, almost in 


1 Westcott, On the Canon, p. 274. 
2 Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. J., p. 443 f. 


126 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


every case contradicted by passages which have been 
allowed to remain, and this is rendered more significant 
by the fact, which is generally admitted, that Marcion’s 
text contains many readings which are manifestly superior 
to, and more original than, the form in which the passages 
stand in our third Synoptic.’ The only one of these to 
which we shall refer is the interesting variation from the 
passage in Luke xi. 2, in the substitution of a prayer 
for the Holy Spirit for the “hallowed be thy name,’— 
ἐλθέτω τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμά Gov ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς instead of ἁγιασθήτω 
τὸ ὄνομά cov. The former is recognized to be the true 
original reading. This phrase is evidently referred to in 
v. 13. We are, therefore, indebted to Marcion for the 
correct version even of ‘ the Lord’s Prayer.” ? 

There can be no doubt that Marcion’s Gospel bore great 
analogy to our Luke, although it was very considerably 
shorter. It is, however, unnecessary to repeat that there 
were many Gospels in the second century which, although 
nearly related to those which have become canonical, were 
independent works, and the most favourable interpreta- 
tion which can be given of the relationship between our 
three Synoptics leaves them very much in a line with 
Marcion’s work. His Gospel was chiefly distinguished 


1 Baur, Das Markusey., p. 195 ff., p. 223 ff.; Anger, Synops. Ἐν. 
Proleg., p. xxv. ff.; Hilgenfeld, Die Evv. J., p. 473; Theol. Jahrb., 1853, 
Ῥ. 222 ff.; Die Evangelien, p. 30; Késtlin, Der Urspr. synopt. Evv., p. 
303; Michaelis, Einl. N. T., 1788, 1. p. 40, p. 342 f., p. 751; Lichhorn, 
Einl. N. T., i. p. 72 ff. ; Reuss, Rey. de Théol., 1857, p. 4; Ritschl, Theol. 
Jahrb., 1851, p. 530 ff.; Das Ev. M., p. 46 ; Bertholdt, Einl., 1813, iii. p. 
1294 ff. ; Volkmar, Das Ey. M., p. 187—199, p. 256 f.; Der Ursprung, 
Ρ. 75 ; De Wette, Einl. N. T., p. 132 ff. ; Zeller, Die Apostelgesch., p. 
13 ff., p. 23 ff. ; cf. Westcott, On the Canon, p. 275. 

2 Ritschl, Das Ev. M., p. 71; Baur, Das Markusey., p. 207; Volkmar, 
Das Ey. M., p. 197 f., p. 256 f.; Der Ursprung, p. 75; Hilgenfeld, Die 
Evy. J., p. 441, p. 415 f.; Anger, Synops. Ey., p. 41; cf. Tertullian, Ady. 
Marc., iy. 26, 


MARCION. 127 


by a shorter text,’ but besides large and important omis- 
sions there are a few additions,? and very many variations 
of text. The whole of the first two chapters of Luke, as 
well as all the third, was wanting, with the exception of 
part of the first verse of the third chapter, which, joined 
to iv. 31, formed the commencement of the Gospel. Of 
chapter iv. verses 1—13, 17—20 and 24 were likewise 
probably absent. Some of the other more important 
omissions are xi. 29—32, 49—51, xi. 1—9, 29—35, 
xv. 11—82, xvii. 5—10 (probably), xviii. 31—34, xix. 
29-48, xx. 919, 37—38, xxi. 1—4, 18, 21—22, 
xxii. 16—18, 28—30, 35—38, 49—51, and there is 
great doubt about the concluding verses of xxiv. from 
44 to the end, but it may have terminated with v. 49. 
It is not certain whether the order was the same as 
Luke,? but there are instances of decided variation, 
especially at the opening. As the peculiarities of the 
opening variations have had an important effect in in- 
clining some critics towards the acceptance of the muti- ᾿ 
lation hypothesis,* it may be well for us briefly to examine 
the more important amongst them. 

Marcion’s Gospel is generally said to have commenced 
thus: “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius 
Ceesar, Jesus came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee.”® 


1 Eichhorn, Einl. N. T., i. p. 53 ff., p. 58 ff., 68 ff. ; Volkmar, Das Ey. 
M., p. 2 ff. 

2 Volkmar, Das Ey. M., p. 80 f. ; Hichhorn, Hinl. N. T., i. p. 77; Bleek, 
ἘΠ]. N. T., p. 128. 

3 Of. Epiphanius, Heer., xlii., ed. Pet., p. 312 ; Hichhorn, Einl. N. T., i. 
p. 46; Volkmar, Das Ey. M., p. 141; Hilgenfeld, Theol. Jahrb., 1853, p. 
199. 

* Reuss, Rey. de Théol., 1857, p. 54; Baur, Das Markuseyv., p. 209; 
Guericke, Gesammtgesch, p. 232. 

- 5 Hahn incorrectly reads, ‘‘God came down” (ὁ θεὸς κατῆλθεν) Ev. M. 
in Thilo, p. 403 ; ef. Volkmar, Das Ey. M., p. 150, anm. 3; Baur, Unters. 
kan. Evy., p. 406, anm.*; Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. J., p. 398, anm. 1. 


128 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


There are various slightly differing readings of this. 
Ephiphanius gives the opening words, Ἔν τῷ πεντεκαι- 
δεκάτῳ ἔτει Τιβερίου Καίσαρος, καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. Tertullian 
has: Anno quintodecimo principatus Tiberiani. . . . de- 
scendisse in civitatem Galileeze Capharnaum.”? The 
καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς of Epiphanius has permitted the conjecture 
that there might have been an additional indication of 
the time, such as “Pontius Pilate being governor of 
Judzea,”* but this has not been generally adopted* It 
is not necessary for us to discuss the sense in which the 
“came down” (κατῆλθε) was interpreted, since it is the 
word used in Luke. Marcion’s Gospel then proceeds 
with iv. 31: “and taught them on the sabbath days, 
(v. 32), and they were exceedingly astonished at his teach- 
ing, for his word was power.” ‘Then follow vs. 33—39 
containing the healing of the man with an unclean 
spirit,> and of Simon’s wife’s mother, with the important 
omission of the expression “of Nazareth” (Nalapnve)® 
after “Jesus” in the ery of the possessed (v. 34). The 
vs. 16—307 immediately follow iv. 39, with important 

1 Heer., xlii., ed. Pet., p. 312. 

2 Ady. M., iv. 7. 

3 Cf. Dial. de recta fide ; Orig., Opp., i. p. 868; Ireneus, Ady. Heer., i. 
27, § 2. 

4 Volkmar has it, Das Ey. M., p. 154, 224, p. 126; Hahn omits it, Ey. 
M. in Thilo, 1. ο., as do also Baur (Unters. kan. Ev., p. 406, who after the 
statement of Epiph. also rightly leaves open the τῆς ἡγεμονίας and xaicapos), 
and Hilgenfeld (who conjectured the second date), Die Evy. J., p. 398; cf. 
Theol. Jahrb., 1853, p. 197. 

5 Volkmar omits v. 37 ; Hahn, Hilgenfeld, and others retain it. Ritschil 
rejects 38, 39, the healing of Simon’s wife’s mother, which are passed 
over in silence by Tertullian (Ady. M., iv. 8), Das Ey. M., p. 76 f., in 
which he is joined by Baur only. The whole of this examination illus- 
trates the uncertainties of the text and of the data on which critics 
attempt to reconstruct it. ᾿ 

6 Volkmar, Das Ey. M., p. 150; cf. 56,131; Hahn, in Thilo, p. 404, 


anm. 4; Hilgenfeld, Die Evv. J., p. 441; Theol. Jahrb., 1853, p. 198. 
7 Volkmar also includes the latter part of y. 14, and all of 15, “" And 


MARCION, 129 


omissions and variations. In iv. 16, where Jesus comes 
to Nazareth, the words “where he had been brought up” 
are omitted, as is also the concluding phrase ‘‘ and stood 
up to read.”! Verses 17—19, in which Jesus reads from 
Isaiah, are altogether wanting. Volkmar omits the whole 
. of v. 20, Hilgenfeld only the first half down to the 
sitting down, retaining the rest ; Hahn retains from “ and 
he sat down” to the end. Of v. 21 only: “He began 
to speak to them” is retained.* From v. 22 the conclud- 
ing phrase: ‘And said: Is not this Joseph’s son” is 
omitted,® as are also the words “in thy country ” from 
v. 23.8 Verse 24, containing the proverb: “ A prophet 
has no honour” is wholly omitted,’ but the best critics 
differ regarding the two followimg verses 25—26; they 
‘ are omitted according to Hahn, Ritschl and De Wette,® 
but retained by Volkmar and Hilgenfeld.® Verse 27, 


there went out a fame of him,” &c., &c. (Das Ey. M., p. 152, ef. 154), but 
in this he is unsupported by others. Cf. Tertullian, Ady. Mare., iv. 8. 

1 Hahn, in Thilo, p. 404, 405, anm. 7; Volkmar, Das Ky. M., p. 150, cf. 
154; Lilyenfeld, Die Evy. Justin’s, p. 441, cf. 399; De Wette, Kinl. N. T., 
p. 124; Ritschl, Das Ey. M., p. 76. 

? Hahn, in Thilo, 404; Das Ey. M., p. 136 ; Volkmar, Das Ky. M., p. 
150; Ritschl, Das Ey. M., 76, anm. 1 ; Hilgenfeld, Theol. Jahrb., 1853, p. 
199; In Die Evy. J., p. 399 (cf. 441), he considers it probable, but docs 
not speak with certainty. Tertullian is silent, Adv. M., iv. 8. 

3. Volkmar, Das Ey. M., p. 150, 154; Hilgenfeld, Theol. Jahrb., 1853, 
p. 199; Hahn, in Thilo, p. 404. 

4 Volkmar reads καὶ ἤρξατο κηρύσσειν αὐτοῖς, Das, Ey. M., p. 154; Hahn 
has λέγειν πρὸς αὐτούς, in Thilo, p. 404; Ritschl, Das Ey. M., 76 aum, 1 ; 
Hilgenfeld suggests λαλεῖν for λέγειν, Theol. Jahrb., 1853, p. 199. 

5 Hahn, Ev. M. in Thilo, p. 405; Volkmar, Das Ey. M., p. 150, 154; 
Hilgenfeld, Theol, Jahrb., 1853, p. 199 ; Die Evy. J., p. 441 ; 2itsch?, Das 
Ey. M., p. 76, anm. 1. 

6 Hahn, in Thilo, p. 405 ; Volkmar, Das Ey. M., p. 150, 154 ; Hilgenfeld, 
Theol. Jahrb. 1853, p. 199. | 

7 Ib. 

8 Hahn, in Thilo, p. 405; Ritschl, Das Ey. M., 76 anm. 1; De Wette, 
Einl. N. T., p. 124. 

® Volkmar, Das Ey. M., p. 154; Hilgenfeld, Th. Jahrb., 1853, p. 199. 

VOL, 11. K 


130 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


referring to the leprosy of Naaman, which, it will be 
remembered, is interpolated at xvii. 14, is omitted here 
by most critics, but retained by Volkmar.’ Verses 28— 
30 come next,? and the four verses iv. 40—44, which 
then immediately follow, complete the chapter. ‘This 
brief analysis, with the accompanying notes, illustrates 
the uncertainty of the text, and, throughout the whole 
Gospel, conjecture similarly plays the larger part. We 
do not propose to criticise minutely the various conclu- 
sions arrived at as to the state of the text, but must 
emphatically remark that where there is so little certainty 
there cannot be any safe ground for delicate deductions 
regarding motives and sequences of matter. Nothing 
is more certain than that, if we criticise and compare 
the Synoptics on the same principle, we meet with the 
most startling results and the most irreconcileable difii- 
culties* The opening of Marcion’s Gospel is more free 
from abruptness and crudity than that of Luke. 

It is not necessary to show that the first three chapters 
of Luke present very many differences from the other 
Synoptics. Mark omits them altogether, and they do 
not even agree with the account in Matthew. We know 
that some of the oldest Gospels of which we have any 
knowledge, such as the Gospel according to the Hebrews, 
are said not to have had the narrative of the first two 
chapters at all,* and there is much more than doubt as to 
their originality. The mere omission of the history of 

1 Volkmar, Das Ey. M., p. 154; Hahn, in Thilo, 405; De Wette. Ein. 
Ν. T., p. 124; Ritschl, Das Ἔν. M., p. 76, anm. 1; Hilgenfeld, Theol. 
Jabrb., 1853, p. 199 f. 


5 Volkmar adds to ““ went his way” the words “to Capernaum,” Das 


Ey. M., p. 155. 
3 Cf. Baur, Das Markusey., p. 211 ff. ; Volkmar, Theol. Jahrb., 1850, 
p. 126 ff. 
Epiphanius, Hzer., xxix. 9; cf. xxx. 13 f. 


MARCION, 131 


the infancy, &c., from Mark, however, renders it unne- 
cessary to show that the absence of these chapters from 
Marcion’s Gospel has the strongest support and justifica- 
tion. Now Luke’s account of the early events and 
geography of the Gospel history is briefly as follows: 
Nazareth is the permanent dwelling-place of Joseph and 
Mary,' but on account of the census they travel to 
Bethlehem, where Jesus is born ;? and after visiting 
Jerusalem to present him at the Temple,* they return 
“to their own city Nazareth.”* After the baptism and 
temptation Jesus comes to Nazareth “where he had 
been brought up,’® and in the course of his address to 
the people he says: “ Ye will surely say unto me this 
proverb: Physician heal thyself: whatsoever we have 
heard done in Capernaum do also here in thy country.” ® 
No mention, however, has before this been made of 
Capernaum, and no account has been given of any 
works done there; but, on the contrary, after escaping 
from the angry mob at Nazareth, Jesus goes for the first 
time to Capernaum, which, on being thus first mentioned, 
is particularized as “a city of Galilee,”’ where he heals 
a man who had an unclean spirit, in the synagogue, who 
addresses him as “Jesus of Nazareth ;”*® and the fame 
of him goes throughout the country. He cures Simon’s 
wife’s mother of a fever’® and when the sun is set they 
bring the sick and he heals them." 

The account in Matthew contradicts this in many 
points, some of which had better be pointed out here. 
Jesus is born in Bethlehem, which is the ordinary 


1 Luke i. 26, ii, 4. : ? ii, 4, 

8 ii, 22, 4 ii, 89; cf. 42, 51. 5 iv. 16. 

6 iv, 23. 7 iy. 31. 8 iv. 33 ff. 

* iv. 87. iy. 38 f. iy, 40—44. 


K 2 


132 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


dwelling-place of the family ;! his parents fly thence 
with him into Egypt,? and on their return, they dwell 
“in a city called Nazareth ; that it might be fulfilled 
which was spoken by the prophets: He shall be called a 
Nazarene.” After John’s imprisonment, Jesus leaves 
Nazareth, and goes to dwell in Capernaum.* From that 
time he begins to preach.® Here then, he commences 
his public career in Capernaum. 

In Mark, Jesus comes from Nazareth to be baptized,° 
and after the imprisonment of John, he comes into 
Galilee preaching.” In Capernaum, he heals the man of 
the unclean spirit, and Simon’s wife’s mother,® and then 
‘retires to a solitary place,® returns after some days to 
Capernaum ’° without going to Nazareth at all, and it is 
only at a later period that he comes to his own country, 
and quotes the proverb regarding a prophet." 

It is evident from this comparison, that there is very 
considerable difference between the three Synoptics, re- 
garding the outset of the career of Jesus, and that there 
must have been decided elasticity in the tradition, and 
variety in the early written accounts of this part of the 
Gospel narrative. Luke alone commits the error of 
making Jesus appear in the synagogue at Nazareth, 
and refer to works wrought at Capernaum, before 
any mention had been made of his having preached 
or worked wonders there to justify the allusions 

1 Matt. di. 1, 5 ff. 2 ii, 18 ff. 

* ii. 38. We need not pause here to point out that there is no such 
‘prophecy known in the Old Testament. The reference may very probably 
be a singularly mistaken application of the word in Isaiah xi. 1, the 
Hebrew word for branch being XZ2, Nazer. 

* iy. 12—13, for the fulfilment of another supposed prophecy, v. 14 ff. 

§ ivy ὩΣ, 6 Mark i. 9. 71.147, 


8:4, DIG se 1; PNA Os LJ hee Ue 
" yi, 1—6; cf. Matt. xiii. δά. 


MARCION. 133 


and the consequent agitation. It is obvious that there 
has been confusion in the arrangement of the third 
Synoptic and a transposition of the episodes, clearly 
pointing to a combination of passages from other sources.' 
Now Marcion’s Gospel did not contain these anomalies. 
It represented Jesus as first appearing in Capernaum, 
teaching in the synagogue, and performing mighty works 
there, and then going to Nazareth, and addressing the 
people with the natural reference to the previous events at 
Capernaum, and in this it is not only more consecutive, 
but also adheres more closely to the other two Synoptics. 
That Luke happens to be the only one of our canonical 
Gospels, which has the words with which Marcion’s 
Gospel commences, is no proof whatever that these words 
were original in that work, and not found in several of 
the πολλοὶ which existed before the third Synoptic was 
compiled. Indeed, the close relationship between the 
first three Gospels is standing testimony to the fact that 
one Gospel was built upon the basis of others previously 
existing. This which has been called. “the chief prop of 
the mutilation hypothesis,’? has really no solid ground 
whatever to stand on beyond the accident that only one 
of three Gospels survives out of many which may have 
had the phrase. The fact that Marcion’s Gospel really 
had the words of Luke, moreover, is mere conjecture, 
inasmuch as Epiphanius, who alone gives the Greek, shows 
a distinct variation of reading. He has: Ἔν τῷ πεντε- 
1 Cf, Luke iv. 23; Matt. viii. 54 ; Mark vi. 1—6. We do not go into 
the question as to the sufficiency of the motives ascribed for the agitation 
at Nazareth, or the contradiction between the facts narrated as to the 
attempt to kill Jesus, and the statement of their wonder at his gracious 
words, vy. 22, &c. There is no evidence where the various discrepancies 
arose, and no certain conclusions can be based upon such arguments, 


2 «Dic Haupstiitze der Vorstiimmelungshypothese.” Laur, Das 
Markusey., p. 209. 


134 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


καιδεκάτῳ ἔτει Τιβερίου Καίσαρος, καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. Luke 
reads: Ἔν ἔτει δὲ πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ τῆς ἡγεμονίας Τιβερίου 
Καίσαρος. We do not of course lay much stress upon 
this, but the fact that there is a variation should be 
noticed, Critics quietly assume, because there’ is a dif- 
ference, that Epiphanius has abbreviated, but that is by 
no means sure. In any case, instances could be multi- 
plied to show that if one of our Synoptic Gospels were 
lost, one of the survivors would in this manner have 
credit for passages which it had in reality either derived 
from the lost Gospel, or with it drawn from a common 
original source. 

Now starting from the undeniable fact that the 
Synoptic Gospels are in no case purely original inde- 
pendent works, but are based upon older writings, or 
upon each other, each Gospel remodelling and adding to 
already existing materials, as the author of the third 
Gospel, indeed, very frankly and distinctly indicates,” it 
seems indeed a bold thing to affirm that Marcion’s 
Gospel, whose existence is authenticated long before we 
have any evidence of Luke’s,? must have been derived 
from the latter. Ewald has made a minute analysis of 
the Synoptics assigning the materials of each to what he 
considers their original source. We do not of course 
attach any very specific importance to such results, for it 
is clear that they must toa great extent be arbitrary 
and incapable of proof, but being effected without any 
reference to the question before us, it may be interesting 

' Her., xlii. ed. Pet., p. 312. 

* Luke i. 1—4. He professes to write in order the things in which 


Theophilus had already been instructed, not to tell something new, but 
merely that he might know the certainty thereof. | 


* Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., i. p. 276 ; Volkmar, Das Ey. M., ae OR 
p. 175 ff. ; Der Ursprung, p. 75. 


MARCION. 135 


to compare Ewald’s conclusions regarding the parallel 
part of Luke, with the first chapter of Marcion’s Gospel. 
Ewald details the materials from which our Synoptic 
Gospels were derived, and the order of their composition 
as follows, each Synoptic of course making use of the 
earlier materials: I. the oldest Gospel. II. the collection of 
Discourses (Spruchsammlung). III. Mark. IV. the Book of 
earlier History. V. our present Matthew. VI. the sixth re- 
cognizable book. VII. the seventh book. VIII. the eighth 
book ; and 1X. Luke.’ Now the only part of our third ca- 
nonical Gospel corresponding with any part of the first 
chapter of Marcion’s Gospel which Ewald ascribes to the 
author of our actual Luke is the opening date.? The pas- 
sage to which the few opening words are joined, and 
which constitute the commencement of Marcion’s Gospel, 
Luke iv. 31—89, is a section commencing with verse 31, 
and extending to the end of the chapter, thereby including 
verses 40—44, which Ewald assigns to Mark.’ Verses 
16—24, which immediately follow, also form a complete 


1 Ewald, Die drei ersten Eyangelien, 1850, p.1; cf. Jahrb. bibl. Wiss., 
1848—49, 

2 The verses iy. 14—15, which Volkmar wished to include, but which 
all other critics reject (sce p. 128, note 7), from Marcion’s text, Ewald 
likewise identifies as an isolated couple of verses by the author of our 
Luke inserted between episodes derived from other written sources, Cf. 
Ewald, 1. ο. 

8. Ewald, Die drei erst. Evy., p. 104 ἢ, ; οἵ. p.1. Wehold that Marcior's 
Gospel read continuously, y. 31—44, and that y. 16 ff. then imme- 
diately followed. This would make the reference at Nazareth to the 
works done at Capernaum much more complete, and would remove the 
incongruity of attributing v. 40—44, to the evening of the day of escape 
from Nazareth and return to Capernaum or to Nazareth itself. The only 
reason for not joining 40—44 to the preceding section 31—39, is the 
broken order of reference by Tertullian (Ady. Mare. iy. 8), but there is no 
statement that he follows the actual order of Marcion in this, and his 
argument would fully account for the order of his references without 
dividing this passage. Of. Volkmar, Das Ἐπ. M., p. 146 ff. ; Zilgenfeld, 
Die Evv. J., p. 462 ff. ; Theol. Jahrb., 1853, p, 198 ἢ, 


136 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


and isolated passaye assigned by Ewald, to the “sixth 
recognizable book.”! Verses 25—27, also are the whole 
of another isolated section attributed by Ewald, to the 
“ Book of earlier history,” whilst 28—30, in like manner 
form another complete and isolated episode, assigned by 
him to the “ eighth recognizable book.”? According to 
Ewald, therefore, Luke’s Gospel at this place is a mere 
patchwork of older writings, and if this be in any degree 
accepted, as in the abstract, indeed, it is by the great 
mass of critics, then the Gospel of Marcion is an arrange- 
ment different from Luke of materials not his, but 
previously existing, and of which, therefore, there is no 
warrant to limit the use and reproduction to the canon- 
ical Gospel. 

The course pursued by critics, with regard to Marcion’s 
Gospel, is necessarily very unsatisfactory. They com- 
mence with a definite hypothesis, and try whether all 
the peculiarities of the text may not be more or less 
well explained by it. On the other hand, the attempt to 
settle the question by a comparison of the reconstructed 
text with Luke’s is equally inconclusive. The deter- 
mination of priority of composition from internal 
evidence, where there are no chronological references, 
must as a general rule be arbitrary, and can rarely be 
accepted as final.- Internal evidence would, indeed, 
decidedly favour the priority of Marcion’s Gospel. -The 
great uncertainty of the whole system, even when applied 
under the most favourable circumstances, is well illus- 
trated by the contradictory results at which critics have 
arrived as to the order of production and dependence on 
each other of our three Synoptics. Without going into 


1 Ewald, Die drei erst. Evy., p. 104, cf. p. 1; vy. 24 is omitted, 
° Ewald, ib., p. 104, cf. p. 1. 


MARCION. 137 


details, we may say that critics who are all agreed upon 
the mutual dependence of those Gospels have variously 
arranged them in the following order: I. Matthew— 
Mark—Luke.’ II. Matthew—Luke—Mark.? ΠῚ. Mark 
—Matthew—Luke* IV. Mark—Luke—Matthew.*  Y. 
Luke—Matthew—Mark*® VI. All three out of com- 
mon written sources.© Were we to state the various 
theories still more in detail, we might largely increase 
the variety of conclusions. These, however, suffice to 
show the uncertainty of results derived from: internal 
evidence. 

It is always assumed that Marcion altered a Gospel to 
suit his own particular system, but as one of his most 
orthodox critics, while asserting that Luke’s narrative lay 
at the basis of his Gospel, admits: “it is not equally 
clear that all the changes were due to Marcion him- 
self ;”7 and, although he considers that “some of the 
omissions can be explained by his peculiar doctrines,” he 


1 Of course we only pretend to indicate a few of the critics who adopt - 
each order. So Bengel, Bolton, Ebrard, Grotius, Hengstenberg, Hug, 
Ililgenfeld, Holtzmann, Mill, Seiler, Townson, Wetstein. 

5. So Ammon, Baur, Bleek, Delitzsch, Fritzsche, Gfrérer, Griesbach, 
Kern, Késtlin, Neudecker, Saunier, Schwarz, Schwegler, Sioffert, Stroth, 
Theile, Owen, Paulus, De Wette, Augustine (de cons. Ey., i. 4). 

3 So Credner, Hitzig, Lachmann, (?) Reuss, Ritschl, Meyer, Storr, 
Thiersch, Ewald. 

4 B. Bauer, Hitzig, (?) Sonnscketbarees Volkmar, Weisse, Wilke. 

5 Biisching, Evanson. 

6 Bertholdt, Clericus, Corrodi, Eichhorn, Gratz. Hianlein, Kuinoel, 
Lessing, Marsh, Michaelis, Koppe, Niemeyer, Semler, Schleiermacher, 
Schmidt, Weber. This view was partly shared by many of those men- 
tioned under other orders. 

7 Westcott, On the Canon, p. 275. We do not pause to discuss Z'ertul- 
lian’s insinuations (Ady. Marec., ivy. 4), that Marcion himself admitted that 
he had amended St. Luke’s Gospel, for the statement was repudiated by 
the Marcionites, abandoned practically by Tertullian himself, and has 
been rejected by the mass of critics. Cf. 2Ritsch?, Das Ey. M., p. 23 ff. ; 
Volkmar, Theol. Jahrb., 1850, p. 120; Das Ey. M., p. 3£.; Hilgenfeld, 

. Die Evy. J., p. 446; Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., i. 283, anm. 2. 


138 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


continues : “ others are unlike arbitrary corrections, and 
must be considered as various readings of the greatest 
interest, dating as they do from a time anterior to all 
other authorities in our possession.”? Now, although 
undoubtedly the more developed forms of the Gospel 
narrative grew up by additions, materially influenced by 
dogmatic and local reasons, it is an argument contrary to 
actual critical results, generally, to affirm that a Gospel 
whose distinguishing characteristic is greater brevity 
was produced by omissions in the interest of a system 
from a longer work of which we never hear till long 
after. It is more simple and natural to suppose that the 
system was formed upon the Gospel as Marcion found it, 
than that the Gospel was afterwards fitted to the system. 
The latter hypothesis, as we have seen, involves absurd 
anomalies which are universally admitted. So imper- 
fectly did Marcion do the work he is supposed to have 
undertaken that he is refuted out of his own manipulated 
document. This might well be the case if he had 
evolved his system from a Gospel independently com- 
posed, and which in the main seemed to support him, 
but not in a work upon which he had felt able freely to 
use the knife. On examination itis found that he omits 
what is favourable, retains what is contradictory, and 
actually interpolates passages contrary to his principles. 
A more senseless and absurd proceeding, judged by 
actual facts, was never ascribed to an able man.? The 
statement of the Fathers that Marcion’s Gospel was no 
original work, but a mutilated version of Luke, is 
unsupported by a single historical or critical argument, 
1 Westcott, On the Canon, p. 275. 


3. Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., i. p. 270 ff. ; Kichhorn, Binl. N. T., i. 
Ῥ. 75 ; Reuss, Rey. de Théol., 1857, p. 4; ef. Tertullian, Ady. Marc., iv. 43. 


MARCION. 139 


and was based merely upon their ecclesiastical theory 
that, being a canonical work adopted by the Church, 
Luke’s Gospel must be the older work. If we except 
the Gospel according to the Hebrews, however, Marcion’s 
Gospel is the oldest evangelical work of which we hear 
anything, and it ranks far above our third Synoptic in 
this respect.!_ There is no evidence that it was not one 
of the numerous Gospels in circulation before our third 
Synoptic was written, and out of which that Gospel itself 
grew.” 

Marcion’s Gospel, we contend, may well have been 
one of the earlier evangelical works which, after the 
development of doctrine in the early Church had led to 
fuller and more elaborate versions, and to the introduc- 
tion of elements from which the more crude primitive 
Gospels were free, were doubtless treasured by some as a 
purer and simpler exposition of Christianity. No one of 
course would maintain that the instant a new edition of 
the Gospel, “with additions and improvements,” was 
produced, the older and more fragmentary codices at 
once disappeared. ‘They would probably gradually 
decline in favour, but many conservative minds, espe- 
cially in distant districts, would long cling to their 
teaching in preference to the more elaborate but later 
productions. This view is supported by many conside- 
rations, and is rendered all the more probable by the fact 
that Marcion found his Gospel in the distant province of 


1 Schwegler, Das uachap. Zeit., i. p. 276 ; Volkmar, Das Ey. M., pp. 1, 
75, 176 ff., 186, 257; Der Ursprung, p. 75; Hilgenfeld, Die Evv. J., p. 
474 f. ; Holtzmann, Die synopt. Evy., p. 402 ; cf. Westcott, On the Canon, 
p. 274 1. : 

3. Eichhorn, Einl. N. T., i. p. 74; Gieseler, Entst. βοῦν, Evy., p. 26; 
Schleiermacher, Kinl, N. T., p. 198; of. Ewald, Jahrb. bibl. Wiss, 1853— 
54, p. 48. 


140 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


Pontus, which in the days when MSS. were but slowly 
multiplied and disseminated lay far from the centres of 
novelty. ‘Tertullian delights in calling the Gospel of the 
Heresiarch the “ Evangelium Ponticum,”' and the Mar- 
cionites maintained that their Gospel was that of which 
the Apostle Paul himself made use.? The circumstance 
that it was actually brought by Marcion from Pontus, 
and the name given to it by Tertullian, however, show 
it to have been a work most probably in circulation 
amongst the Christians of that province, who no doubt 
had their special Gospel like all the early Christian 
communities. The Church in Pontus was strongly 
Paulinian, and it is therefore probable that they may 
have used a form of the Gospel narrative associated 
with that Apostle which, elsewhere, in circles of greater 
intellectual and Christian activity, had gradually become 
transformed and matured into larger proportions.* No 
one accuses Marcion of having written his own Gospel, 
nor did he, after the fashion of his time, call it after his 
own name.* On the contrary, it had no author's name 
attached to it, and its superscription was simply, “ The 
Gospel,” or “The Gospel of the Lord” (τὸ εὐαγγελιον or 
εὐαγγελιον Tov κυρίου). Schwegler has rightly remarked 


1 Cf. Ady. Marc., iv. 2. 

* Tertullian, Ray. Marc., iv. 2; Dial. de recta fide, § 1; Orig., Opp., i. 
p- 807; cf. Rom. ii. 16, xvi. 25; Gal. i. 6. 

3 Bertholdt, Eiml. A. und Ν. T., 1813, iii. Ὁ. 1216 ff., 1294 ff. Bertholdt 
considers Marcion’s Gospel an earlier Greek translation from the original 
Gospel which formed the basis of Luke. Luke edited in Greek the 
original Gospel which Paul used. 

* Bunsen, Bibelwerk, viii. p. 563 ; Schleiermacher, Einl. N. T., p. 198; 
. Credner, Beitrage, i. p. 43; Richhorn; Einl. N. T., i. p. 79 f. 

* Marcion Evangelio suo nullum adscribit auctorem. Tertullian, Adv. 
. Mare., iv. 2; Dial, de recta fide, §1; Bertholdt, Einl., iii. p. 1293; Bleek, 
Ejinl. Ν. “T., p. 126; Bunsen, Bibelwerk, viii. p. 563; Credner, Beitrige, 
i. p. 43; Eichhorn, Fin. N. T., i. p. 79 ἢ ; Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit, 


MARCION, 141 


that this very namelessness is, as in the Gospel according 
to the Hebrews, strong evidence of its originality ; a forger 
would certainly not have omitted to attach to his falsi- 
fied Gospel some weighty name of apostolic times. 
That some importance should be attached to this point 
is evident from the fact that Tertullian reproaches Mar- 
cion with the anonymous character of his work, arising 
from the omission of the expedient too well known in his 
time. “And here already I might make a stand,” he 
exclaims, at the very opening of his attack on the Gospel 
of Pontus, “contending that a work is not to-be recog- 
nized which does not hold its front erect... . . which 
does not engage faith from the plenitude of its title, and 
the due profession of its author.”? The spurious and 
pseudonymic literature of the first centuries of our era 
prove only too well how little scruple there was to sup- 
port pious fraud by plenitude of title, and the ‘“ Great 
African” himself was not unfrequently a victim to the 
practice. Not only did Marcion himself not in any way 
connect the name of Luke with his Gospel, but his fol- 
lowers repudiated the idea that Luke was its author, and 
taunted the orthodox members of the Church for having 
their doctrines taught by four adulterated Gospels, whilst 
they received theirs from one, the Gospel of Christ.$ 

If we turn to the Epistles of Paul, which Marcion 


‘i. p. 280 f., p. 261; Scholten, Het Paulin. Evangelie, p. 8; Tischendor/, 
Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 61; De Wette, Einl, N. T., p. 119 f.; Hahn, 
Ey. M. in Thilo, p. 403; Das Ev. M., p. 1382; Neudecker, Einl. N. T., 
p. 74, anm. ΠῚ Das nachap. Zeit., i. p. 281. 

? Et possem hicjam gradum figere, non agnoscendum contendens opus, 
quod non erigat frontem, quod nullam constantiam preferat, nullam 
fidem repromittat de plenitudine tituli et professione debita auctoris, 
Tertullian, Ady. Mare., iv. 2.. 

3 Dial. de recta fide, ὃ 1; Bertholdt, Einl. iii. p. 1295, 1218 ff. ; Bunsen, 
Bibelwerk, viii. p. 563; Hichhorn, Einl. N. T., i. p. 79 f.; Gieseler, Entst. 
schr. Evy., p. 25. The later Marcionites affirmed their Gospel to have 


142 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


acknowledged, for some help in deciding the question as 
to his Gospel, we find that in many respects as to selec- 
tion, order, and readings, Marcion’s collection is remark- 
ably in unison with the results of modern criticism.’ 
The information which we have regarding his text is 
very defective, but it is sufficient to show that many of 
the alterations which he is accused by his uneritical and 
ignorant adversaries of making in the interest of his 
system are really original and correct readings, whilst 
others are either merely unimportant natural variations, 
or mere accidental omissions from the copy in the hands 
of the Fathers.2 “Tertullian and Epiphanius,”’ writes 
Canon Westcott, “agree in affirming that Marcion 
altered the texts of the books which he received to suit 
his own views; and they quote many various readings 
in support of the assertion. Those which they cite from 
the Epistles are certainly insufficient to prove the point ; 
and on the contrary, they go far to show that Marcion 
preserved without alteration the text which he found 
in his manuscript. Of the seven readings noticed by 
Epiphanius only two are unsupported by other authority ; 
and it is altogether unlikely that Marcion changed other 
passages, when, as Epiphanius himself shows, he left 
untouched those which are most directly opposed to his 
system.”* Now the Epistles did not go through the 
process of development by which through successive addi- 
been written by Christ himself, and the particulars of the Crucifixion, 
&c., to have been added by Paul. ᾿ 

τ Baur, Unters. kan. Evy., p. 420 ff. ; Reuss, Hist. du Canon, p. 77 ff. ; 
Gesch. N. T., p. 286; Ritschl, Das Ey. M., p. 153 ff., p. 166; Sehwegler, 
Das nachap Zeit., i. p. 273; Westeott, On the Canon, p. 274; cf. De Wette, 
Fink. A. T., 1852, § 20, p. 25 ἢ. 

3 Baur, Unters. kan. Evy., p. 411 ff.; Credner, Gesch. N. T. Kan., 


p- 160 ff. ; Reuss, Hist. du Canon, p. 72, note 3; Gesch. N. T., p. 370 cf. 
3 Westcott, On the Canon, p. 274. 


MARCION. ὁ 143 


tions and alterations the Gospels attained their present 
form. We are, therefore, able to determine with con- 
siderable accuracy the original state of their text. We 
find, then, that not only does Marcion leave untouched, 
even by the showing of Epiphanius himself, the passages 
most opposed to him, but that the falsifications of which 
he is accused by the Fathers are often more original read- 
ings supported by the best authorities, and in fact that he 
evidently had in no way tampered with his manuscript. 
Is it not reasonable to suppose that he had equally 
preserved without alteration the text which he found in 
the manuscript of his Gospel? Any man of his eminence 
adopting and holding fast a comparatively primitive form 
of the Gospel found in circulation in a distant province 
like Pontus, and thus preserving it from the fate of other 
similar works, would soon find on comparing it with 
Gospels which had grown up and advanced with the 
progress of the Church, that it lacked many a passage 
which had crept into them. His Gospel had stood still 
on the outskirts of Christianity, whilst others in the 
more active religious centres had collected fresh matter 
and modified their original form. We have no reason to 
believe the accusation of the Fathers in regard to the 
Gospel, which we cannot fully test, better founded than 
that in regard to the Epistles, which we can test, and 
find unfounded. It is a significant fact that Justin 
Martyr, who attacks Marcion’s system, never brings any 
accusation against him of mutilating or falsifying any 
Gospel, although, living at the time of the Heresiarch, 
he was in a position to know the facts much more cer- 
tainly than Irenzeus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius, who 
lived and wrote at a much later period. There is good 
reason to conclude that Marcion made use of a Gospel 


144 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


in a more primitive and less mature state than our third 
Synoptic, and that, as he did with the Epistles, he pre- 
served the text as he found it. 

There is no evidence whatever that Marcion had any 
knowledge of the other canonical Gospels in any form.’ 
None of his writings are extant, and no direct assertion 
is made even by the Fathers that he knew them, although 
from their dogmatic point of view they assume that these 
Gospels existed from the very first, and therefore insin- 
uate that as he only recognized one Gospel, he rejected 
them.? When Irenzeus says: ‘‘ He persuaded his disciples 
that he himself was more veracious than are the apostles 
who handed down the Gospel ; delivering to them not 
the Gospel, but part of the Gospel,”* it is quite clear 
that he speaks of the Gospel—the good tidings—Chris- 
tianity—and not of specific written Gospels. In another 
passage which is referred to by Apologists, Irenzeus says 
of the Marcionites that they have asserted: “ That the 
apostles, forsooth, have proclaimed the Gospel still under 
the influence of Jewish prejudices ; but that they them- 
selves are more perfect and more judicious than the 
apostles. Wherefore also Marcion and his followers have 
had recourse to mutilating the Scriptures, not recognizing 
some books at all, but curtailing the Gospel according 
to Luke and the Epistles of Paul; these they say are 
alone authentic which they themselves have abbreviated.”* 


1 Hichhorn, Hinl. N, 'T., i. p. 78 ff., 79, 84; Gieseler, Entst. schr. Evy. 
p. 25; Rumpf, Rey. de Théol., 1867, p. 21; Schleiermacher, Finl. N. T., 
p. 214 f. 

5. Treneus, Adv. Hueer., i. 27, § 2; ef. ili. 23 12, § 12; Tertullian, Ady. 
Basi, iv. 3; ef. De Carne Christi, 2, 3. 

3. Semetipsum. esse veraciorem, quam sunt hi, qui Evangelium tra- 
diderunt, apostoli, suasit discipulis suis; non Evangelium, sed particulam 
Evangelii tradens eis. Ady. Heer., i. 27, § 2. 

4 Et apostolos quidem adhuc que sunt Judseorum sentientes, annun- 
tiasso Evangelium ; se autem sinceriores, et prudentiores apostolis esse. 


OT = = Se 


MARCION, 145 


These remarks chiefly refer to the followers of Marcion, 
and as we have shown, when treating of Valentinus, 
Irenzeus is expressly writing against members of heretical 
sects living in his own day and not of the founders of 
those sects! The Marcionites of the time of Lrenzeus no 
doubt rejected the Gospels, but although Marcion ob- 
viously did not accept any of the Gospels which have 
become canonical, it does not by any means follow that 
he knew anything of these particular Gospels. As yet 
we have not met with any evidence even of their exist- 
ence at a much later period. 

The evidence of Tertullian is not a whit more valu- 
able. In the passage usually cited, he says: “ But 
Marcion, lighting upon the Epistle of Paul to the Gala- 
tians, in which he reproaches even Apostles for not 
walking uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel, 
as well as accuses certain false Apostles of perverting 
the Gospel of Christ, tries with all his might to destroy 
the status of those Gospels which are promulgated legiti- 
mately and under the name of Apostles or also of 
apostolic men, in order, be it known, to confer upon his 
own the eredit which he takes from them.”? Now here 
again it is clear that Tertullian is simply applying, by 
inference, Marcion’s views with regard to the preaching 


Unde et Marcion, et qui ab eo sunt, ad intercidendas conversi sunt 
Scripturas, quasdam quidem in totum non cognoscentes, secundum Lucam 
autem Evangelium, et Epistolas Pauli decurtantes, hac sola legitima 
esse dicunt, quee ipsi minorayerunt. Ady. Heer., iii. 12, § 12. 

1 Of. Adv. Heer., i. Proof. ὃ 2; iii. Praof., &e. . 

* Sed enim Marcion nactus epistolam Pauli ad Galatas, éfiam ipsos 
apostolos suggillantis ut non recto pede incedentes ad veritatem eyangcelii, 
simul et accusantis pseudapostolos quosdam pervertentes evangelium 
Christi, connititur ad destruendum statum eorum eyangeliorum, quie 
propria et sub apostolorum nomine eduntur, vel etiam apostolicorum, ut 
scilicet fidem, quam illis adimit, suo conferat, Ady. Marc., iy. 3; cf. de 
Carne Christi, 2, 3, 

VOL, Il, : Ψ 


146 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


of the Gospel by the two parties in the Church, repre- 
sented by the Apostle Paul and the “ pillar” Apostles 
whose leaning to Jewish doctrines he condemned, to the 
written Gospels recognized in his day though not in 
Marcion’s. “It is uncertain,” says even Canon Westcott, 
“whether Tertullian in the passage quoted speaks from a 
knowledge of what Marcion may have written on the 
subject, or simply from his own point of sight.”? Any 
doubt is, however, removed on examining the context, for 
Tertullian proceeds to argue that if Paul censured Peter, 
John and James, it was for changing their company from 
respect of persons, and similarly, “if false apostles crept 
in,” they betrayed their character by insisting on Jewish 
observances. “So that it was not on account of their 
preaching, but of their conversation that they were 
pointed out by Paul,”? and he goes on to argue that if 
Marcion thus accuses Apostles of having depraved the 
Gospel by their dissimulation, he accuses Christ accusing 
those whom Christ selected.* It is palpable, therefore, 
that Marcion, in whatever he may have written, referred 
to the preaching of the Gospel, or Christianity, by Apostles 
who retained their Jewish prejudices in favour of cireum- 
cision and legal observances, and not to written Gospels. 
Tertullian merely assumes, with his usual audacity, that 
the Church had the four Gospels from the very first, and 
therefore that Marcion, who had only one Gospel, knew 
the others and deliberately rejected them. 

At the very best, even if the hypothesis that Marcion’s 
Gospel was a mutilated Luke were established, Marcion 


1 On the Canon, p. 276, note 1. 


2 Adeo non de preedicatione, sed de conyersatione a Paulo denotabantur, 
Ady. Mare., iy. 3. 


3 Ady. Marc., iy. 3. 


Se a μέν, 
x 


MARCION, 147 


affords no evidence in favour of the authenticity or trust- 
worthy character of our third Synoptic. His Gospel 
was nameless, and his followers repudiated the idea of its 
having been written by Luke ; and regarded even as the 
earliest testimony for the existence of Luke’s Gospel, that 
testimony is not in confirmation of its genuineness and 
reliability, but on the contrary condemns it as garbled 
and interpolated. 


148 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


CHAPTER VIII. 
TATIAN—DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH. 


From Marcion we now turn to Tatian, another so- 
called heretic leader. ‘Tatian, an Assyrian by birth,’ 
embraced Christianity and became a disciple of Justin 
Martyr? in Rome, sharing with him, as it seems, the 
persecution excited by Crescens the Cynic? to which 
Justin fell a victim. After the death of Justin, ‘l'atian, 
who till then had continued thoroughly orthodox, left 
Rome, and joined the sect of the Encratites, of which, 
however, he was not the founder,‘ and became the 
leading exponent of their austere and ascetic doctrines.* 

The only one of his writings which is still extant is 
his “ Oration to the Greeks” (λόγος πρὸς Ἕλληνας). This 
work was written after the death of Justin, for in it he 
refers to that event,® and it is generally dated between 


1 Oratio ad Greecos, cd Otto, § 42. 

2 1d., § 18. 3 Tb., § 19. 

* Anger, Synops. Ey. Proleg., p. xxviii. ; Credner, Beitiiige, 1. p. 437; 
Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 34; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 277. 

° Husebius, Ἢ. E., iv. 29; Zreneus, Ady. Her., i. 28; Epiphunius, 
Her., xlvyi. 1; Hieron., De Vir. Illustr., 29; Theodoret, Hier. fab., i. 20; 
Beausobre, Hist. du Manichéisme, i. p. 303 f.; Matter, Hist du Chris- 
tianisme, 2 ed., i. p. 172 f.; Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 34; Credner, 
Beitriige, i. p. 437 f.; Bunsen, Bibelwerk, viii. p. 562; Donaldson, Hist. 
Chr, Lit. and Doctr., il. p. 3 ff. ; Lardner, Credibility, &c., Works, ii. p. 
136 ff 

§ Orat. ad Gr., $19; Credner, Beitriige, i. 438; Scholten, Die iilt. Zeug- 
nisse, p. 93; Keim, Jesu y. Nazara, i, p. 145; Tischendors, Wann wurden, 
τι. 5. W., p. 16, anm. 1. 


TATIAN. 11:9 


A.D. 170 ---Ἰ7.} Tischendorf does not assert that there is 
any quotation in this address taken from the Synoptic 
Gospels ;? and Canon Westcott only affirms that it 
contains a “ clear reference” to “a parable recorded by 
St. Matthew,” and he excuses the slightness of this 
evidence by adding: “The absence of more explicit 
testimony to the books of the New Testament is to 
be accounted for by the style of his writing, and not 
by his unworthy estimate of their importance.”* This 
remark is without foundation, as we know nothing 
whatever with regard to Tatian’s estimate of any such 
books, 

The supposed “clear reference ” is as follows: “ For 
by means of a certain hidden treasure (ἀποκρύφου 
θησαυροῦ) he has taken to himself all that we possess, 
for which while we are digging we are indeed covered 
with dust, but we succeed in making it our fixed pos- 
session.” * This is claimed as a reference to Matt. 
xiii. 44: “The kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure 
hidden (θησαυρῷ κεκρυμμένῳ) in the field, which a man 
found and hid, and for his joy he goeth and selleth all 
that he hath and buyeth that field.” So faint a simi- 
larity could not prove anything, but it is evident that 
there are decided differences here. Were the probability 


' Keim, Jesu vy. Nazara, i. p. 145; Vischendorf (between 166—170), 
Wann wurden, τι. 5. w., p. 16, anm. 1, p. 17; Volkmar (between 165— 
175), Der Ursprung, p. 163; cf. p. 34 ff; Credner, Beitriige, 1. p. 438 ; 
Scholten, Die iilt. Zeugnisse, p. 93; Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit, and Doctr., 
111. p. 10; Lardner (between 165—172), Credibility, &c., Works, ii. p. 139; 
De Wette (+ 176), Einl. A. 'T., 1852, p. 24. 

2 Cf. Wann wurden, τι. s. w., p. 16 f. 

3 On the Canon, p. 278. 

1 Διὰ τινὸς yap ἀποκρύφου θησαυροῦ τῶν ἡμετέρων ἐπεκράτησεν, ὃν ὀρύττοντες 
κονιορτῷ μὲν ἡμεῖς ἐνεπλήσθημεν, τούτῳ δὲ τοῦ συνεστάναι τὴν ἀφορμὴν παρέχομεν. 


Orat, ad Gr., § 80. 


150 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


fifty times greater than it is that Tatian had in his mind 
the parable, which is reported in our first Gospel, nothing 
could be more unwarrantable than the deduction that he 
referred to the passage in our Matthew, and not to any 
other of the numerous Gospels which we know to have 
early been in circulation , Ewald ascribes the parable in 
Matthew originally to the “Spruchsammlung” or collec- 
tion of Discourses, the second of the four works out of 
which he considers our first Synoptic to have been com- 
piled.! As evidence for the existence even οἱ our first 
canonical Gospel no such reference could have the 
slightest value. 

Although neither Tischendorf nor Canon Westcott 
think it worth while to refer to it, some apologists claim 
another passage in the Oration as a reference to our 
third Synoptic. “Laugh ye: nevertheless you shall 
weep.”? This is compared with Luke vi. 25: “ Woe 
unto you that Jaugh now: for ye shall mourn and 
weep.”3 Here again it is absurd to trace a reference in 
the words of Tatian specially to our third Gospel, and 
manifestly nothing could be more foolish than to build 
upon such vague similarity any hypothesis of Tatian’s 
acquaintance with Luke. If there be one part of the 
Gospel which was more known than another in the first 
ages of Christianity it was the Sermon on the Mount, 
and there can be no doubt that many evangelical works 
now lost contained versions of it. Ewald likewise 
assigns this passage of Luke originally to the Spruch- 
sammlung,* and no one can doubt that the saying was 
recorded long before the writer of the third Gospel 

1 Die drei ersten Evy., 1. c. 

2 Ledare δὲ ὑμεῖς, ὡς καὶ κλαύσοντες. Orat. ad Gr., ὃ 32. 


3 οὐαὶ ὑμῖν of γελῶντες viv’ ὅτι πενθήύσετε καὶ KAavoere. Luke yi. 25. 
4 Die drei ersten Evy., 1. ο. 


TATIAN. 151 


undertook to compile evangelical history, as so many had 
done before him. It is one specially likely to have 
formed part of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. 
Further on, however, Canon Westcott says: “it can 
be gathered from Clement of Alexandria . . . that 
he (Tatian) endeavoured to derive authority for his 
peculiar opinions from the Epistles to the Corinthians 
and Galatians, and probably from the Epistle to the 
Ephesians, and the Gospel of St. Matthew.”? Allusion 
is here made-to a passage in the Stromata of Clement, in 
which reference is supposed by the apologist to be made 
to Tatian. No person, however, is named, and Clement 
merely introduces his remark by the words: “a certain 
person (tts) inveighs, &c., applying the Saviour’s words 
not to treasure upon earth where moth and rust corrupt” 
(ἐπὶ γῆς μὴ θησαυρίζειν ὅπου σὴς καὶ βρῶσις apavile).? 
The parallel passage in Matthew vi. 19, reads: “ Lay 
not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth 
and rust doth corrupt,’ &c. (μὴ θησαυρίζετε ὑμῖν 
θησαυροὺς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, κιτ.λ). Canon Westcott, it is 
true, merely suggests that “probably” this may be 
ascribed to Tatian, but it is almost absolutely certain 
that it was not attributed to him by Clement. ‘Tatian is 
several times referred to in the course of the same 
chapter, and his words are continued by the use of φησί 
or γράφει, and it is in the highest degree improbable 
that Clement should introduce another quotation from 
him in such immediate context by the vague and distant 
reference “a certain person” (71s). On the other hand 
reference is made in the chapter to other writers and 
sects, to one of whom with infinitely greater propriety 
this expression applies. No weight, therefore, could be 


1 On the Canon, p. 279. 2 Strom. 111. 12, § 86. 


152 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


attached to any such passage in connection with Tatian. 
Moreover the quotation not only does not agree with our 
Synoptic, but may much more probably have been 
derived from the Gospel according to the Hebrews.’ 
It will be remembered that Justin Martyr quotes the 
same passage, with the same omission of “ θησαυρούς," 
from a Gospel different from our Synopties.? 

Tatian, however, is claimed by apologists as a witness 
for the existence of our Gospels—more than this he 
could not possibly be—principally on the ground that 
his Gospel was called by some Diatessaron (διὰ τεσσάρων) 
or “ by four,” and it is assumed to have been a harmony 
of four Gospels. The work is no longer extant, and, as 
we shall see, our information regarding it is of the 
scantiest and most unsatisfactory description. Critics 
have arrived at very various conclusions with regard to 
the composition of the work. Some of course affirm, 
with more or less of hesitation nevertheless, that it 
was nothing else than a harmony of our four canonical 
Gospels ;? many of these, however, are constrained to 
admit that it was also partly based upon the Gospel 
according to the Hebrews.* Others maintain that it was 
a harmony of our three Synoptics together with the 


1 Cf. Credner, Beitriige, i. p. 445. 

* Justin, Apol., 1. 15, see Vol. i. p. 354 f., p. 376 f. 

3. Anyer, Synops. Ey. Proleg., p. xxviii.; Bleek, Einl. N. T., p. 231; 
Bindemann, Th. Stud. u. Krit., 1842, p. 471 ff.; Celérier, Essai d’une 
Introd. N. T., p. 21; Delitzsch, Urspr. Mt. Ev., p. 30; Feilmoser, 
Einl. N. B., p. 276; Guericke, Gesammtzesch. N. T., p. 227; Jug, Finl. 
N. Τ᾿, i. p. 40 ff; Airchhofer, Quellensamml., p. 43, anm. 1; Neudecker, 
Lehrb. Ein]. Ν T., p. 45 f. ; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 279 ff. ; Tischen- 
dorf, Wann wurden, τι. 5. w., p. 16 f.; Olshausen, Echth. -vier can. Evv. 
Ρ. 336 ff. 

ὁ Guericke, Gesammtgesch., p. 227; Kirchhofer, Quellensamml., 
p- 44, anm. 1; De Wette, Kinl. N. T., p. 116 f. ; Neudecker, Einl. N. T., 
p- 45 f.; cf. Michaelis, Ein. N. T., ii. p. 1007 f., 1042 ; Simon, Hist. Crit. 
N. T., pera. 


TATIAN. 153 


Gospel according to the Hebrews;! whilst many deay 
that it was composed of our Gospels at all,? and either 
declare it to have been a harmony of the Gospel accord- 
ing to the Hebrews with three other Gospels whose 
identity cannot be determined, or that it was simply the 
Gospel according to the Hebrews itself,? by which name, 
as Epiphanius states, it was called by many in his day.‘ 

Tatian’s Gospel, however, was not only called Diates- 
saron, but, according to Victor of Capua, it was also 
called Diapente (διὰ πέντε) “ by five,’® a complication 
which shows the incorrectness of the ecclesiastical theory 
of its composition. 

Tischendorf, anxious to date Tatian’s Gospel as early 
as possible, says that in all probability it was composed 
earlier than the address to the Greeks.6 Of this, how- 
ever, he does not offer any evidence, and upon examina- 
tion it is very evident that the work was on the contrary 
composed or adopted after the Oration and his avowal of 
heretical opinions. ‘Theodoret states that Tatian had in 

1 Bunsen, Bibelwerk, viii. p. 562; Gratz, Kr. Unters. Justin’s Denkw. ; 
Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 94; cf. 98. 

3 Credner, Beitriige, i. p. 48, p. 443 f.; Hichhorn, Kin. N. T., i. p. 
120 ff.; Reuss, Gesch. N. T., p. 193; Schmidt, Einl. N. T., i. p. 125 ff. ; 
Wilcke, Tradition u. Mythe, p. 15. 

3 Baur, Unters. kan Evy., p. 573; Credner, Beitriige, i. p. 444; Gesch. 
N. Τὶ Kanons, p. 17 ff. ; Hichhorn, Finl. N. T., i. p. 123; Rewss, Gesch. 
N. T., p. 193; Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., i. p. 235; Nicolas, Et. sur les 
Ey. apocr., p. 137. ; 

4 Epiphanius, Heer., xlyi. 1. 

δ Preef. ad anon. Harm. Evang. ; cf. Habricius, Cod. N. 'T., i. p. 378 ; 
Kirchhofer, Quellensamml., p. 44; Reuss, Gesch. N. T., p. 193; Schott, 
Isagoge, p. 22, ann. 3; Michaelis, Winl. Ν, T., 11. p. 1008; Simon, Hist. 
Crit. N. T., ch. vii.; Deausobre, Hist. du Manichéisme, i. p. 303 f.; 
Nicolas, Et. evang. apocr., p. 137; Neudecker, Einl. N. T., p. 44 ἔς, anm. 
p- 45 ἢν, p. 47, anm. 2; Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii. p. 8397; Lardner, 
Credibility, &c., Works, ii. p. 138 f.; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 282, 
note 1. 

§ Wann wurden, τι. s. w., p. 16, anm. 1. 


154 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


it omitted the genealogies and all other passages showing 
that Christ was born of David according to the flesh, and 
he condemned the work, and caused it to be abandoned 
on account of its evil design.’ If the assumption be 
correct, therefore, as Tischendorf maintains, that Tatian 
altered our Gospels, and did not merely from the first, 
like his master Justin, make use of Gospels different 
from those which afterwards became canonical, he must 
have composed the work after the death of Justin, up to 
which time he is stated to have remained quite orthodox.? 
The date may with much greater probability be set 
between a.p. 170—180.3 

The earliest writer who mentions Tatian’s Gospel is 
Kusebius,* who wrote some century and a half after its 
supposed composition, without, however, having himself 
seen the work at all, or being really acquainted with its 
nature and contents.? Eusebius says: “Tatian, however, 
their former chief, having put together a certain amalga- 
mation and collection, I know not how, of the Gospels, 
named this the Diatessaron, which even now is current 
with some.”® It is clear that this information is not to 
be relied on, for not only is it based upon mere hearsay, 


1 Heeret. fab., i. 20. 

2 Treneus, Ady. Heer.,i. 28; Eusebius, H. E., iv. 29. 

3 Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 164, p. 35. 

4 Credner, Beitriige, i. p. 441; Feilmoser, Einl. N. B., p. 275; Hilgen- 
feld, Der Kanon, p. 83, anm. 6; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 279. 

5 Bunsen, Bibelwerk, viii. p. 562; Celérier, Introd. N. T., p. 22; 
Credner, Beitrige, i. p. 441 f.; Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii. p. 396; 
Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., iii. p. 24; Feilmoser, Einl. N. B., 
p. 275; Hug, inl. N. T., i. p. 42; ZLardner, Credibility, &c., Works, ii. 
p. 138 ; Reuss, Gesch. N. T., p. 193; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 94; 
Westcott, On the Canon, p. 280 f., note 4. 

5 Ὁ μέντοι ye πρότερος αὐτῶν ἀρχηγὸς 6 Τατιανὸς συνάφειάν τινα καὶ, συναγωγὴν 
οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅπως τῶν εὐαγγελίων συνθεὶς, τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων τοῦτο προσωνόμασεν" Ὁ 
καὶ παρά τισιν εἰσέτι νῦν φέρεται. H. E., iy. 29. 


TATIAN. 155 


but it is altogether indefinite as to the character of the 
contents, and the writer admits his own ignorance (οὐκ 
οἶδ᾽ ὅπως) regarding them. 

Neither Irenzeus, Clement of Alexandria, nor Jerome, 
who refer to other works of 'Tatian, make any mention 
of this one. Epiphanius, however, does so, but, like 
Eusebius, without having himself seen it.! This second 
reference to Tatian’s Gospel is made upwards of two 
centuries after its supposed composition. Epiphanius 
says: “It is said that he (Tatian) composed the Gospel 
by four, which is called by some the Gospel according to 
the Hebrews.”? It must be observed that it is not said 
that Tatian himself gave this Gospel the name of Diates- 
saron,* but on the contrary the expression of Epiphanius 
implies that he did not do so,* and the fact that it was 
also called by some the Gospel according to the Hebrews, 
and Diapente, shows that the work had no superscription 
from Tatian of a contradictory character. Theodoret, 
Bishop of Cyrus (+457) is the next writer who mentions 
‘Tatian’s Gospel, and he is the only one who had per- 
sonally seen it. He says: “ He (Tatian) also composed 
the Gospel which is called Diatessaron, excising the 
genealogies and all the other parts which declare that 
the Lord was born of the seed of David according to the 
flesh. This was used not only by those of his own sect, 
but also by those who held the apostolic doctrines, who 
did not perceive the evil of the composition, but made 

1 Credner, Beitriige, i. p. 442; Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii. p. 396; 
Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., iii. p, 24. 

3 Λέγεται δὲ τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων εὐαγγέλιον bm’ αὐτοῦ γεγενῆσθαι ὅπερ, Κατὰ 
“Ἑβραίους τινὲς καλοῦσι. Epiph., Heer., xlvi. 1. 

3 Credner, Gesch. N. T. Kanon, p. 18; Neudecker, Hinl. N. T., p. 47, 
anm. 2; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 95; Volkmar, Der Ursprung, 


p. 34. 
* Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii. p. 397, 


156 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


use of the book in simplicity on account of its concise- 
ness. I myself found upwards of two hundred such 
books held in honour among your churches, and collect- 
ing them all together, I had them put aside, and instead 
introduced the Gospels of the four Evangelists.” Again 
it must be observed that Theodoret does not say that 
the Gospel of Tatian was a Diatessaron, but merely that 
it was called so (διὰ τεσσάρων καλούμενον). 

After quoting this passage, and that from Epiphanius, 
Canon Westcott says with an assurance which, con- 
sidering the nature of the evidence, is singular :—“ Not 
only then was the Diatessaron grounded on the four 
canonical Gospels, but in its general form it was so 
orthodox as to enjoy a wide ecclesiastical popularity. 
The heretical character of the book was not evident 
upon the surface of it, and consisted rather in faults of 
defect than in erroneous teaching. Theodoret had cer- 
tainly examined it, and he, like earlier writers, regarded 
it as a compilation from the four Gospels. He speaks 
of omissions which were at least in part natural in a 
Harmony, but notices no such apocryphal additions as 
would have found place in any Gospel not derived from 
canonical sources.” Now it must be remembered that 
the evidence regarding Tatian’s Gospel is of the very 
vaguest description. It is not mentioned by any writer 
until a century and a half after the date of its supposed 

1 Οὗτος καὶ τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων καλεύμενον συντέθεικεν εὐαγγέλιον, Tas TE γενεα- 
λογίας περικόψας, καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ὅσα ἐκ σπέρματος Δαβὶδ κατὰ σάρκα γεγενημένον 
τὸν κύριον δείκνυσιν. ᾿Εχρήσαντο δὲ τούτῳ οὐ μόνον οἱ τῆς ἐκείνου συμμορίας, 
ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ τοῖς ἀποστελικοῖς ἑπίμετει δέγμεσι, τὴν τῆς συνξί κης κακουργίαν οἱκ 
ἐγνωκότες, ἀλλ᾽ ἁπλοίστερον ὡς συντόμῳ τῷ βιβλίῳ χρησάμενοι. Ἑὗρον δὲ κἀγὼ 
πλείους ἢ διακοσίας βίβλους τοιαίτας ἐν ταῖς παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἐκκλησίαις τετιμημένας, 
καὶ πάσας συναγαγὼν ἀπεθέμην, καὶ τὰ τῶν τεττάρων εὐαγγελιστῶν ἀντεισήγαγον 


εὐαγγέλια. Heer. fab., i. 20. 
2 On the Canon, p. 281. 


TATIAN. 157 


composition, and then only referred to by Eusebius, who 
had not seen the work, and candidly confesses his ignor- 
ance with regard to it, so that a critic who is almost as 
orthodox as Canon Westcott himself acknowledges : 
“ For the truth is that we know no more about Tatian’s 
work than what Eusebius, who never saw it, knew.”? 
The only other writer who refers to it, Epiphanius, had 
not seen it either, and while showing that the title of 
Diatessaron had not been given to it by Tatian himself, 
he states the important fact that some called it the 
Gospel according to the Hebrews. Theodoret, the last 
writer who mentions it, and of whom Dr. Donaldson 
also says; “'Theodoret’s information cannot be depended 
upon,’? not only does not say that it is based upon our 
four Gospels, but, on the contrary, points out that Tatian’s 
Gospel did not contain the genealogies and passages 
tracing the descent of Jesus through the race of David, 
which our Synoptics possess, and he so much con- 
demned the mischievous design of the work that he 
confiscated the copies in circulation in his diocese as 
heretical. Canon Westcott’s assertion that Theodoret 
regarded it as a compilation of our four Gospels is most 
unfounded and arbitrary. Omissions, as he himself 
points out, are natural to a Harmony, and conciseness 
certainly would be the last quality for which it could have 
been so highly prized, if every part of the four Gospels 
had been retained. ‘The omission of the parts referred 
to, which are equally omitted from the canonical fourth 
Gospel, could not have been sufficient to merit the 
condemnation of the work as heretical, and had Tatian’s 
Gospel not been different in various respects from our 


1 Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., iii. p. 26. 
2 Ib,, iii. p, 25, 


158 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


four Gospels, such treatment would have been totally 
unwatrantable. The statement, moreover, that in place 
of Tatian’s Gospel, Theodoret “ introduced the Gospels 
of the four Evangelists,” seems to indicate clearly that 
the displaced Gospel was not a compilation from them, 
but different. 

Speaking of the difficulty of distinguishing Tatian’s 
Harmony from others which must, the writer sup- 
poses, have been composed in his time, Dr. Donaldson 
admits: “And then we must remember that the Har- 
mony of Tatian was confounded with the Gospel accord- 
ing to the Hebrews; and it is not beyond the reach of 
possibility that Theodoret should have made some such 
mistake.” That is to say, that the only writer who 
refers to Tatian’s Gospel who professes to have seen the 
work is not only “not to be depended on,” but may 
actually have mistaken for it the Gospel according to the 
Hebrews. There is, therefore, no authority for saying 
that Tatian’s Gospel was a harmony of four Gospels at 
all, and the name Diatessaron was not only not given by 
Tatian himself to the work, but was merely the usual fore- 
gone conclusion of the Christians of the third and fourth 
centuries, that everything in the shape of evangelical 
literature must be dependent on the Gospels adopted by 
the Church. Those, however, who called the Gospel used 
by Tatian the Gospel according to the Hebrews, must 
have read the work, and all that we know confirms their 
conclusion. The work was, in point of fact, found in wide 
circulation precisely in the places in which, earlier, the 
Gospel according to the Hebrews was more particularly 
current.? The singular fact that the earliest reference 


1 Donaldson, Hist. of Chr. Lit, and Doctr., iii. p. 25. 
2 Credner, Beitrage, i. p. 445; cf. Westcott, On the Canon, p. 280, note 2. 


TATIAN, 159 


to Tatian’s “Harmony,” is made a century and a half 
after its supposed composition, that no writer before the 
fifth century had seen the work itself, indeed that only 
two writers before that period mention it at all, receives 
its natural explanation in the conclusion that Tatian did 
not actually compose any Harmony at all, but simply 
made use of the same Gospel as his master Justin 
Martyr, namely, the Gospel according to the Hebrews,’ 
by which name his Gospel had been called by those best 
informed. 

Although Theodoret, writing in the fifth century, says 
in the usual arbitrary manner of early Christian writers, 
that Tatian “excised” from his Gospel the genealogies 
and certain passages found in the Synoptics, he offers no 
proof of his assertion, and the utmost that can be 
received is that Tatian’s Gospel did not contain them.? 
Did he omit them or merely use a Gospel which never 
included them? The latter is the more probable con- 
clusion. Now neither Justin’s Gospel nor the Gospel 
according to the Hebrews contained the genealogies or 
references to the Son of David, and why, as Credner 
suggests, should Tatian have taken the trouble to pre- 
pare a Harmony with these omissions when he already 
found one such as he desired in Justin’s Gospel ἢ 
Tatian’s Gospel, like that of his master Justin, or the 
Gospel according to the Hebrews, was different from, yet 
nearly related to, our canonical Gospels, and as we have 
already seen, Justin’s Gospel, like Tatian’s, was con- 
sidered by many to be a harmony of our Gospels.3 No 


1 Of. Credner, Beitriige, i. p. 443 ff.; Schmidt, Hinl. N. T., i. p. 124 ff. ; 
Scholten, Die alt, Zeugnisse, p. 96 f, 

2 Cf. Hichhorn, Hinl. N. T., p. 121 δ; Hug, Einl. N. T., i. p. 42; 
Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 36 f. 

3 Credner, Beitriige, i. p. 443 ff. 


160 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


one seems to have seen Tatian’s “Harmony,” for the 
very simple reason that there was no such work, and 
the real Gospel used by him was that according to 
the Hebrews, as many distinctly and correctly called it. 
The name Diatessaron is first heard of in a work of the 
fourth century, when it is naturally given by people 
accustomed to trace every such work to our four Gospels, 
buat as we have clearly seen, there is not up to the time 
of Tatian any evidence even of the existence of any one 
of our Gospels, and much less of a collection of the four. 
Here is an attempt to identify a supposed, but not 
demonstrated, harmony of Gospels whose separate exist- 
ence has not been heard of. Even Dr. Westcott states 
that Tatian’s Diatessaron “is apparently the first recog- 
nition of a fourfold Gospel,”? but, as we have seen, that 
recognition emanates only from a writer of the fourth 
century who had not seen the work of which he speaks. 
No such modern ideas, based upon mere foregone con- 
clusions, can be allowed to enter into a discussion 
regarding a work dating from the time of Tatian. 

The fact that the work found by Theodoret in his 
diocese was used by orthodox Christians without con- 
sciousness of its supposed heterodoxy, is quite con- 
sistent with the fact that it was the Gospel according 
to the Hebrews, which at one time was exclusively 
used by the Fathers, but in later times became gradually 
an object of suspicion and jealousy in the Church as 
our canonical Gospels took its place. The manner in 
which Theodoret dealt with Tatian’s Gospel, or that 
“according to the Hebrews,” recalls the treatment 
by Serapion of another form of the same work: the 
Gospel according to Peter. He found that work in 


1 On the Canon, p. 219. 


TATIAN, 161 


circulation and greatly valued amongst the Christians of 
Rhossus, and allowed them peaceably to retain it for a 
time, until, alarmed at the Docetic heresy, he more 
closely examined the Gospel, and discovered in it what 
he considered heretical matter... The Gospel according 
to the Hebrews, once used by all the Fathers, and 
which indeed narrowly missed a permanent place in the 
Canon of the Church, might well seem orthodox to the 
simple Christians of Cyrus, yet as different from, though 
closely related to, the Canonical Gospels, it would seem 
heretical to their Bishop. As different from the Gospels 
of the four evangelists, it was suppressed by Theodoret 
with perfect indifference as to whether if, were called 
Tatian’s Gospel or the Gospel according to the Hebrews. 

It is obvious that there is no evidence whatever con- 
necting Tatian’s Gospel with those in our Canon. We 
know so little about that last work, indeed, that as 
Dr. Donaldson frankly admits, “we should not be able 
to identify it, even if it did come down to us, unless it 
told us something reliable about itself.”* Its earlier 
history is enveloped in obscurity, and as Canon Westcott 
observes: “The later history of the Diatessaron . is 
involved in confusion.” We have seen that in the 
sixth century it was described by Victor of Capua as 
Diapente, “ by five,” instead of “by four.” It was also 
confounded with another Harmony written not long 
after Tatian’s day by Ammonius of Alexandria (7243). 
Dionysius Bar-Salibi,* a writer of the latter half of the 
twelfth century, mentions that the Syrian Ephrem, about 
the middle of the fourth century, wrote a commentary 


1 Rusebius, H. E., vi. 12. ! . 
? Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., iii. p. 26. 3 On the Canon, p. 281. 
4 Jos. Sim, Asscmani, Bibl. Orient., ii. p. 159 ἢ, 

VoL, 11. ἣ M 


162 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


on the Diatessaron of Tatian, which Diatessaron com- 
menced with the opening words-of the fourth Gospel, 
“In the beginning was the word.” The statement of 
Bar-Salibi, however, is contradicted by Gregory Bar- 
Hebreus, Bishop of Tagrit, who says that Ephrem Syrus 
wrote his Commentary on the Diatessaron of Ammonius, 
and that this Diatessaron commenced with the words of 
the fourth Gospel: “In the beginning was the word.” 
The Syrian Ebed-Jesu (71308) held Tatian and 
Ammonius to be one and the same person; and it 
is more than probable that Dionysius mistook the 
Harmony of Ammonius for that of Tatian. It is not 
necessary further to follow this discussion, for it in no 
way affects our question, and all critics are agreed that 
no important deduction can be derived from it.2 We 
allude to the point for the mere sake of showing that up 
to the last we have no information which throws further 
light on the composition of Tatian’s Gospel. All that we 
know of it,—what it did not contain—the places where 
it largely circulated, and the name by which it was called, 
identifies it with the Gospel according to the Hebrews. 
For the rest, Tatian had no idea of a New Testament 
Canon, and evidently did not recognize as inspired, any 
Seriptures except those of the Old Testament3 It is 
well known that the sect of the Encratites made use of 
apocryphal Gospels until a much later period, and 
rejected the authority of the Apostle Paul, and although 

1 Assemani, Bibl. Orient., i. p. 57 f. 

* Credner, Beitrage, i. p. 446 ff.; Gesch. N. T. Kan., p. 19 ff; Donald- 
son, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., iii. p. 25 £; Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii. 
p- 397; Eichhorn, Einl. N. T., p. 120, anm.; Gieseler, Entst. schr. Evv., 
p- 17; Hug, Em) N. T., 1. p. 40 ff; Michaelis, Eiml. N. T., i. p. 898; 
Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 95 f.; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 281 £ 


* Credner, Beitrage, i. p. 47 f., p. 441; Gesch. N. T. Kanons, p. 21; 
Scholten, Die ait. Zeugnisse, p. 98; Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 35. 


DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH. 163 


Tatian may have been acquainted with some of his 
Epistles, it is certain that he did not hold the Apostle in 
any honour, and permitted himself the liberty of altering 
his phraseology.' 


2. 


Dionysius of Corinth need not detain us long. Euse- 
bius informs us that he was the author of seven Epistles 
addressed to various Christian communities, and also 
of a letter to Chrysophora, “a most faithful sister.” 
Eusebius speaks of these writings as Catholic Epistles, 
and briefly characterizes each, but with the exception 
of a few short fragments preserved by him, none of these 
fruits of the “inspired industry” (ἐνθέου φιλοπονίας) 
of Dionysius are now extant.? These fragments are all 
from an Epistle said to have been addressed to Soter, 
Bishop of Rome, and give us a clue to the time at which 
they were written. The Bishopric of Soter is generally 
dated between A.D. 168—176,* during which years the 
Epistle must have been composed. It could not have 
been written, however, until after Dionysius became 
Bishop of Corinth in A.p. 170, and it was ἔχω 
written some years after.® 


1 Epiphanius, Heer. xlvii. 1; Eusebius, H. E., iv. 29; Hieron., Preef. 
in Tit.; Credner, Beitrige, i. p. 47, p. 438; Scholten, Die ilt. Zeugnisse, 
Ῥ. 97 f.; Lardner, Credibility, &c., Works, ii. p. 138; Westcott, On the 
Canon, p. 278, 280, note 1. 

3 Kusebius, H. E., iv. 23; Hieron., De Vir. Π]., 27; Grabe, Spicil. 
Patr., ii. p. 217f.; Routh, Relig. Sacre, i Ρ. 180 ff. 

3 Husebius, H. Ὥς, iy. 19. 

4 Anger, Synops. Ey. Proleg., p. xxxii.; Kirchhofer, Quellensamml., 
p. 479; Lardner, Credibility, &c., Works, ii. p. 1383; Hilgenfeld, Der 
Kanon, p. 77; Reuss, Gesch. N. T., p. 290; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, 
p. 107; Zischendorf, Wann wurden, τι. 5. w., p. 18; Volkmar, Der Ur- 
sprung, p. 164; ef. p. 37; Husebius in his Chronicon sets it in A.D. 171. 

5 Anger places it between 173—177, Synops. Ey. Proleg., xxxil.; cf. 

M 2 


164 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


No quotation from, or allusion to, any writing of the 
New Testament occurs in any of the fragments of the 
Epistles still extant ; nor does Eusebius make mention of 
any such reference in the Epistles which have perished, 
which he certainly would not have omitted to do had 
they contained any. As testimony for our Gospels, 
therefore, Dionysius is an absolute blank. Some expres- 
sions and statements, however, are put forward by apolo- 
gists which we must examine. In the few lines which 
Tischendorf accords to Dionysius he refers to two of 
these. The first is an expression used, not by Dionysius 
himself, but by Eusebius, in speaking of the Epistles to 
the Churches at Amastris and at Pontus. Eusebius 
says that Dionysius adds some “ expositions of Holy 
Scriptures” (γραφῶν θείων ἐξηγήσεις). There can be 
no doubt that this refers to the Old Testament only, and 
Tischendorf himself does not deny it.? 

The second passage which 'Tischendorf* points out, and 
which he claims with some other apologists as evidence 
of the actual existence of a New Testament Canon when 
Dionysius wrote, occurs in a fragment from the Epistle 
to Soter and the Romans which is preserved by Eusebius. 
It is as follows: “For the brethren having requested 
me to write Epistles, I write them. And the Apostles 
of the devil have filled these with tares, both taking 
away parts and adding others; for whom the woe is 
destined. It is not surprising then if some have reck- 


Credner, Gesch. N. T. Kan., p. 79. Jerome states that Dionysius 
flourished under M. Aurel. Verus and L. Aurel. Commodus. De Vir. i. 
27. 

1 Eusebius, H. E., iv. 28. 

5 Tischendorf, Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 18 f.; Volkmar, Der Ur- 
sprung, p. 38; Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., iii. p. 217; Dr. 
Westcott’s opinion is shown by his not even referring to the expression. 

3 Wann wurden, τι. s. w., p. 18 f. 


DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH. 165 


lessly ventured to adulterate the Scriptures of the 
Lord when they have corrupted these which are not 
of such importance.”! Regarding this passage, Canon 
Westcott, with his usual boldness, says: “ It is evident 
that the ‘Scriptures of the Lord ’—the writings of the 
New Testament—were at this time collected, that they 
were distinguished from other books, that they were 
jealously guarded, that they had been corrupted for 
heretical purposes.” Canon Westcott’s imagination runs 
away with him. We have seen that there has not been 
a trace of any New Testament Canon in the writings of 
the Fathers before and during this age, and it is really 
disereditable that any critic, even though an “ Apologist,” 
acquainted with the history of the Canon should make a 
statement like this, and put such an interpretation upon 
the remark of Dionysius. Dr. Donaldson, with greater 
critical justice and reserve, remarks regarding the expres- 
sion “Scriptures of the Lord :” “ It is not easy to settle 
what this term means,” although he adds his own per- 
sonal opinion, “ but most probably it refers to the Gospels 
as containing the sayings and doings of the Lord. It is 
not likely, as Lardner supposes, that such a term would 
be applied to the whole of the New Testament.”? The 
idea of our New Testament being referred to is simply 
preposterous, and although it is quite open to argument 
that Dionysius may have referred to evangelical works, 
it is obvious that there are no means of proving the fact, 
and much less that he referred to our Gospels specially ; 


1 ᾿Ἐπιστολὰς yap ἀδελφῶν ἀξιωσάντων pe γράψαι, ἔγραψα. Καὶ ταύτας οἱ 
τοῦ διαβόλου ἀπόστολοι ζιζανίων γεγέμικαν, ἃ μὲν ἐξαιροῦντες, ἃ δὲ προστιθέντες. 
Οἷς τὸ οὐαὶ κεῖται., Οὐ θαυμαστὸν ἄρα εἰ καὶ τῶν κυριακῶν ῥαδιουργῆσαί τινες 
ἐπιβέβληνται γραφῶν, ὁπότε καί ταῖς οὐ τοιαύταις ἐπιβεβουλεύκασι. Eusebius, 
H. E., iv. 23. 2 On the Canon, p. 166. 

3 Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., iii. p. 217. 


166 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


in fact the fragments of Dionysius present no evidence 
whatever of the existence of our Synoptics. 

The term, however, does not of necessity apply to any 
Gospels or works of Christian history at all, and may 
with perfect propriety have indicated the Scriptures of 
the Old Testament. We find Justin Martyr complaining 
in the same spirit as Dionysius, through several chapters, 
that the Old Testament Scriptures, and more especially 
those relating to the Lord, had been adulterated, that 
parts had been taken away, and others added, with the 
intention of destroying or weakening their application to 
Christ.’ Justin’s argument throughout is, that the whole 
of the Old Testament Scriptures refer to Christ, and 
Tryphon, his antagonist, the representative of Jewish 
opinion, is made to avow that the Jews not only wait 
for Christ, but, he adds : ‘ We admit that all the Scrip- 
tures which you have cited refer to him.”? Not only, 
therefore, were the Scriptures of the Old Testament 
closely connected with their Lord by the Fathers, and, 
at the date of which we are treating, were the only 
‘Hely Scriptures” recognised, but they made the same 
complaints which we meet with in Dionysius that these 
Scriptures were adulterated by omissions and interpola- 
tions. The expression of Eusebius regarding “expo- 
sitions of Holy or Divine Scriptures” (γραφῶν θείων 
ἐξηγήσεις) added by Dionysius, which applied to the 
Old Testament, tends to connect the Old Testament also 
with this term “Scriptures of the Lord.” It is certain 
that had Dionysius mentioned books of the New Testa- 
ment, Eusebius would as usual have stated the fact. 


1 Dial. Cc. Tryph., lxx.—lIxxy. 2 Dial., lxxxix. 
*This charge is made with insistance throughout the Clementine 
Homilies. 


DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH. 167 


If the term “ Scriptures of the Lord,” however, be re- 
ferred to Gospels, the difficulty of using it as evidence 
continues undiminished. We have no indication what- 
eyer what evangelical works were in the Bishop’s mind. 
We have not yet met with any trace of our Gospels, 
whilst on the other hand we have seen other Gospels 
used by the Fathers, and in exclusive circulation amongst 
various communities, and even until much later times 
many works were regarded by them as divinely inspired 
which have no place in our Canon. The Gospel accord- 
ing to the Hebrews for instance was made use of by all 
the Apostolic Fathers, by pseudo-Ignatius, Polycarp, 
Papias, Hegesippus, Justin Martyr, and at least em- 
ployed along with our Gospels by Clement of Alexandria, 
Origen, and Jerome, whilst Eusebius is in doubt whether 
to place it in the second class among the Antilegomena 
with the Apocalypse, or in the first, amongst the Homo- 
logomena.’ The fact that Serapion, in the third century 
allowed the Gospel of Peter to be used in the church of 
Rhossus? shows at the same time the consideration in 
which it was held, and the incompleteness of the 
‘Canonical position of the New Testament writings. So 
does the circumstance that in the fifth century Theodoret 
found the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or Tatian’s 
Gospel, widely circulated and held in honour amongst 
orthodox churches in his diocese.* The Pastor of Hermas, 
which was read in the Churches and nearly secured a 
permanent place in the Canon, was quoted as inspired by 
Trenzeus.* The Epistle of Barnabas was held in similar 


1 Eusebius, Ἢ, E., iii, 25. = 1d., yi. 12. 

3 Theodoret, Heer. fab., i. 20; ef. Epiph., Hoor., xlyi. 1; cf. Theodoret, 
Heer. fab., ii. 2. 

4 Ady. Heer., iy. 20, § 2; Huseb., H. E., γ. 8; cf. iii. 3. 


168 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


honour, and quoted as inspired by Clement of Alexan- 
dria! and by Origen,’ as was likewise the Epistle of the 
Roman Clement. The Apocalypse of Peter was included 
by Clement of Alexandria in his account of the Canonical 
Scriptures and those which are disputed, such as_ the 
Epistle of Jude and the other Catholic Epistles? and it 
stands side by side with the Apocalypse of John in the 
Canon of Muratori, being long after publicly read in the 
Churches of Palestine Tischendorf indeed conjectures 
that a blank in the Codex Sinaiticus after the New Testa- 
ment was formerly filled by it. Justin, Clement of 
Alexandria, and Lactantius quote the Sibylline books as 
the Word of God, and pay similar honour to the Book of 
Hystaspes.6 So great indeed was the consideration and 
use of the Sibylline Books in the Church of the second 
and third centuries, that Christians from that fact were 
nicknamed Sibyllists.6 It is unnecessary to multiply, as 
might so easily be done, these illustrations ; it is too 
well known that a vast number of Gospels and similar 
works which have been excluded from the Canon were 
held in the deepest veneration by the Church in the 
second century, to which the words of Dionysius may 
apply. So vague and indefinite an expression at any rate 
is useless as evidence for the existence of our Canonical 
Gospels. 


Canon Westcott’s deduction from the words of 


1 Strom., ii. 8, iv. 17. 2 Philocal., 18. 

3 Eusebius, H. E., vi. 14. 4 Sozom., 11. E., vii. 19. 

ὅ Justin, Apol., i. 20, 44; Clem. Al., Strom., vi. 5, §§ 42, 43; Lactan- 
tius, Instit. Div., i. 6, 7, vii. 15, 19. Clement of Alexandria quotes with 
perfect faith and seriousness some apocryphal book, in which, he says, 
the Apostle Paul recommends the Hellenic books, the Sibyl and the 
books of Hystaspes as giving notably clear prophetic descriptions of the 
Son of God. Strom., vi. ὅ, ὃ 42, 43. 

5 Origen, Contra Cels., y. 6; cf. vii. 53. 


DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH. 169 


Dionysius, that not only were the writings of the New 
‘Testament already collected, but that they were “jealously 
guarded,” is imaginative indeed. It is much and 
devoutly to be wished that they had been as carefully 
guarded as he supposes, even at a much later period, but 
it is well known that this was not the case, and that 
numerous interpolations have been introduced into the 
text. The whole history of the Canon and of Christian 
literature in the second and third centuries displays the 
most deplorable carelessness and want. of critical judg- 
ment on the part of the Fathers. Whatever was 
considered as conducive to Christian edification was 
blindly adopted by them, and a vast number of works 
were Jaunched into circulation and falsely ascribed to 
Apostles and others likely to secure for them greater 
consideration. Such pious fraud was rarely suspected, 
still more rarely detected in the early ages of Christianity, 
and several of such pseudographs have secured a place 
in our New Testament. The words of Dionysius need 
not receive any wider signification than a reference 
to well-known Epistles. It is clear from the words of 
the Apostle Paul in 2 Thess. ii. 2, ii. 17, that his Epistles 
were falsified, and setting aside some of those which bear 
his name in our Canon, spurious Epistles were long 
ascribed to him, such as the Epistle to the Laodiceans 
and a third Epistle to the Corinthians. We need not do 
more than allude to the second Epistle falsely bearing 
the name of Clement of Rome, as well as the Clementine 
Homilies and Recognitions, the Apostolical Constitutions, 
and the spurious letters of Ignatius, the letters and 
legend of Abgarus quoted by Eusebius, and the Epistles 
of Paul and Seneca, in addition to others already pointed 
out, as instances of the wholesale falsification of that 


170 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


period, many of which gross forgeries were at once 
accepted as genuine by the Fathers, so slight was their 
critical faculty and so ready their credulity... In one 
case the Church punished the author who, from mistaken 
zeal for the honour of the Apostle Paul, fabricated the 
Acta Pauli et Thecle in his name,? but the forged 
production was not the less made use of in the Church. 
There was, therefore, no lack of falsification and adultera- 
tion of works of Apostles and others of greater note 
than himself to warrant the remark of Dionysius, without 
any forced application of it to our Gospels or to a New 
Testament Canon, the existence of which there is nothing 
to substantiate, but on the contrary every reason to 
discredit. 

Before leaving this passage we may add that although 
even Tischendorf does not, Canon Westcott does find in 
it references to our first Synoptic, and to the Apocalypse. 
“The short fragment just quoted,” he says, “contains 
two obvious allusions, one to the Gospel of St. Matthew, 
and one to the Apocalypse.” * The words: “the Apostles 
of the devil have filled these with tares,” are, he supposes, 
an allusion to Matt. xiii. 24 ff. But even if the expres- 
sion were an echo of the Parable of the Wheat and 
Tares, it is absurd to refer it in this arbitrary way to our 
first Gospel, to the exclusion of the numerous other works 
which existed, many of which doubtless contained it, 
and notably the Gospel according to the Hebrews. 
Obviously the words have no evidential value. 

Continuing his previous assertions, however, Canon 
Westcott affirms with equal boldness: “The allusion in 


1 The Epistle of Jude quotes as genuine the Assumption of Moses, ard 
also the Book of Enoch, and the defence of the authenticity of the latter 
by Tertullian (de Cultu fem., i. 3) will not be forgotten. 

2 Tertullian, De Baptismo, 17. 3. On the Canon, p. 167. 


DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH. 171 


the last clause”—to the “Scriptures of the Lord ”— 
“will be clear when it is remembered that Dionysius 
‘warred against the heresy of Marcion and defended . 
the rule of truth’” (παρίστασθαι κανόνι ad.).! Tischen- 
dorf, who is ready enough to strain every expression into 
evidence, recognizes too well that this is not capable of 
such an interpretation, Dr. Westcott omits to mention 
that the words, moreover, are not used by Dionysius at 
all, but simply proceed from Eusebius.? Dr. Donaldson 
distinctly states the fact that, “there is no reference to 
the Bible in the words of Eusebius: he defends the rule 
of the truth”? (τῷ τῆς ἀχηθείας παρίσταται κανόνι). 

There is only one other point to mention. Canon 
Westcott refers to the passage in the Epistle of Dionysius, 
which has already been. quoted in this work regarding 
the reading of Christian writings in churches. “ To- 
day,” he writes to Soter, “we have kept the Lord’s 
holy day, in which we have read your Epistle, from the 
reading of which we shall ever derive admonition, as we 
do from the former one written to us by Clement.”* It 
is evident that there was no idea, in selecting the works 
to be read at the weekly assembly of Christians, of any 
Canon of a New Testament. We here learn that the 
Epistles of Clement and of Soter were habitually read, 
and while we hear of this, and of the similar reading of 
Justin’s “ Memoirs of the Apostles,’® of the Pastor of 
Hermas,® of the Apocalypse of Peter,? and other 
apocryphal works, we do not at the same time hear of 
the public reading of our Gospels. 


1 On:the Canon, p. 166 ἢ, *H.E., iv. 23. 
8 Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., 111, p. 217 f. 
4 Kuseb., H. Τὶ, iv. 28. δ Justin, Apol., i. 67. 


5 Huseb., H. E., iii. 3; Hieron,, De Vir. Il, 10, 
7 Sozom., H. E., vii. 9. 


172 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


CHAPTER IX. 


MELITO OF SARDIS—CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS--ATHENA- 
GORAS—THE EPISTLE OF VJENNE AND LYONS. 


WE might here altogether have passed over Melito, 
Bishop of Sardis in Lydia, had it not been for the use 
of certain fragments of his writings made by Canon 
Westcott. Melito, naturally, is not cited by Tischendorf 
at all, but the English Apologist, with greater zeal, we 
think, than critical diseretion, forces him into service as 
evidence for the Gospels and a New Testament Canon. 
The date of Melito, it is generally agreed, falls after 
A.D. 176, a phrase in his apology presented to Marcus 
Antoninus preserved in Eusebius! (era τοῦ παιδός) 
indicating that Commodus had already been admitted to 
a share of the Government.? 

Canon Westcott affirms that, in a fragment preserved 
by Eusebius, Melito speaks of the books of the New 
Testament in a collected form. He says: “The words 
of Melito on the other hand are simple and casual, and 
yet their meaning can scarcely be mistaken. He writes 
to Ouesimus, a fellow-Christian who had urged him ‘to 


1H. E., iv. 26. 

2 Basnage, Ann. Polit. Eccles., 177, § 3; Dupin, Biblioth. des Auteurs 
Eccl., i. p. 63; Lardner, Credibility, &c., Works, ii. p. 147; Zillemont, 
Mém. Hist. Eccl., ii. p. 707, note 1 f.; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 193, 
note 2; Woog, De Melitone, ὃ 5; cf. Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., 
iii. p. 229. 


MELITO OF SARDIS. 173 


make selections for him from the Law and the Prophets 
concerning the Saviour and the faith generally, and fur- 
thermore desired to Jearn the accurate account of the 
Old (παλαιῶν) Books ;’ ‘having gone therefore to the 
East,’ Melito says, ‘and reached the spot where [each 
thing] was preached and done, and having learned 
accurately the Books of the Old Testament, I have sent 
a list of them.’ The mention of ‘the Old Books ’—‘ the 
Books of the Old Testament,’ naturally implies a definite 
New Testament, a written antitype to the Old ; and the 
form of language implies a familar recognition of its 
contents.”! This is truly astonishing! The “ form of 
language ” can only refer to the words : ‘ concerning the 
Saviour and the faith generally,” which must have an 
amazing fulness of meaning to convey to Canon West- 
cott the implication of a “familiar recognition” of the 
contents of a supposed already collected New Testa- 
ment, seeing that a simple Christian, not to say a Bishop, 
might at least know of a Saviour and the faith generally 
from the oral preaching of the Gospel, from a single 
Epistle of Paul, or from any of the πολλοὶ of Luke. 
This reasoning forms a worthy pendant to his argument 
that because Melito speaks of the books of the Old Tes- 
tament he implies the existence of a definite collected 
New Testament. Such an assertion is calculated to mis- 
lead a large class of readers.? 

The fragment of Melito is as follows: “ Melito to his 


1 On the Canon, p. 193. 

5 Τὸ must be said, however, that Canon Westcott merely follows and 
exaggerates Lardner, here, who says: ‘‘ From this passage I would con- 
clude that there was then also a yolume or collection of books called the 
New Testament, containing the writings of Apostles and Apostolical men, 
but we cannot from hence infer the names or the exact number of those 
books.” Oredibility, &c., Works, ii. p. 148. 


174 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


brother Onesimus, greeting. As thou hast frequently 
desired in thy zeal for the word (λόγον) to have extracts 
made for thee, both from the law and the prophets con- 
cerning the Saviour and our whole faith ; nay, more, hast 
wished to be informed with exactness of the old books 
(παλαιῶν βιβλίων), how many they are and what is their 
order, I have earnestly endeavoured to accomplish this, 
knowing thy zeal concerning the faith, and thy desire to 
be informed concerning the word (λόγον), and especially 
that thou preferrest these matters to all others from love 
towards God, striving to gain eternal salvation. Having, 
therefore, gone to the East, and reached the place where 
this was preached and done, and having accurately 
ascertained the books of the Old Testament (ra τῆς 
παλαιᾶς διαθήκης βιβλία), I have, subjoined, sent a list 
of them unto thee, and these are the names” — then 
follows a list of the books of the Old Testament 
omitting, however, Esther. He then concludes with the | 
words : “Of these I have made the extracts dividing 
them into six books.” ? 

Canon Westcott’s assertion that the expression “Old 
Books,” ‘“ Books of the Old Testament,” involves here by 
antithesis a definite written New Testament, requires us 
to say a few words as to the name of “Testament” as 
applied to both divisions of the Bible. It is of course 
well known that this word came into use originally from 
the translation of the Hebrew word “ covenant” (773), 
or compact made between God and the Israelites,? in 
the Septuagint version by the Greek word Διαθήκη, 
which in a legal sense also means a will or Testament,’ 
and that word is adopted throughout the New Testa- 


1 Eusebius, H. E., iv. 26. 2 Cf. Exod. xxiy. 7. 
3 The legal sense of διαθήκη as a Will or Testament is distinctly in- 


MELITO OF SARDIS. 175 


ment.' The Vulgate translation, instead of retaining 
the original Hebrew signification, translated the word 
in the Gospels and Epistles, “ Testamentwm,” and ἡ 
παλαιὰ διαθήκη became “ Vetus Testamentum,” instead 
of “ Vetus Foaedus,’ and whenever the word occurs in 
the English version it is almost invariably rendered 
“ Testament ” instead of covenant. The expression 
“ Book of the Covenant,” or “ Testament,” βίβλος τῆς 
διαθήκης, frequently occurs in the LXX version of the 
Old Testament and its Apocrypha,? and in Jeremiah 
xxxl, 31-34,3 the prophet speaks of making a “new 
covenant” (καινὴ διαθήκη) with the house of Israel, 
which is indeed quoted in Hebrews viii. 8. It is the 
doctrinal idea of thé new covenant, through Christ con- 
firming the former one made to the Israelites, which 
has led to the distinction of the Old and New Testa- 
ments. Generally the Old Testament was, in the first 
ages of Christianity, indicated by the simple expressions 
“The Books” (τὰ βιβλία), “ Holy Seriptures” (ἱερὰ 
γράμματα, or γραφαὶ ayia),® or “The Scriptures” (ai 
ypapal),® but the preparation for the distinction of “Old 
Testament ” began very early in the development of the 
doctrinal idea of the New Testament of Christ, before 
there was any part of the New Testament books written 
-atall. The expression “New Testament,” derived thus 


tended in Heb. ix. 16. ‘‘ For where a Testament (διαθήκη) is, there 
must also of necessity be the death of the testator” (διαθεμένου). The 
same word διαθήκη is employed throughout the whole passage. Heb. 
ix. 15—20. 

12 Cor. iii. 14; Heb. viii. 6—13, xii. 24; ves ix. 4, xi. 26—28; 
Gal. iii. 14—17; Ephes. ii. 12, &., &e. 

3 Of. Exod. xxiy. 7; 2 Chron. xxxiy. 30; 2 Kings xxiii. 2; 1 Maccab. 
i. 57; Sirach, xxiy. 23, &., ἄο. 

5 In the Septuagint version, xxxviii. 31—34. 

42 Tim. iii. 15. 5 Rom. i. 2. 5 Matt. xxii, 29, 


176 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


- antithetically from the “Old Testament,” occurs constantly 
throughout the second part of the Bible. In the Epistle 
to the Hebrews vii. 6-13, the Mosaic dispensation is 
contrasted with the Christian, and Jesus is called the 
Mediator of a better Testament (διαθήκη). The first 
Testament not being faultless, is replaced by the second, 
and the writer quotes the passage from Jeremiah to 
which we have referred regarding a New Testament, 
winding up his argument with the words, v.13: “In that 
he saith a new (Testament) he hath made the first old.” 
Again, in our first Gospel, during the Last Supper, Jesus 
is represented as saying: “This is my blood of the New 
Testament” (τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης) ;? and in Lukehe says : 
“This cup is the New Testament (ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη) in 
my blood.* There is, therefore, a very distinct reference 
made to the two Testaments as “ New” and “ Old,” and 
in speaking of the books of the Law and the Prophets as 
the “Old Books” and ‘ Books of the old Testament,” 
after the general acceptance of the Gospel of Jesus as 
the New Testament or Covenant, there was no anti- 
thetical implication whatever of a written New Testa- 
ment, but a mere reference to the doctrinal idea. We 
might multiply illustrations showing how ever-present 
to the mind of the early Church was the contrast of the 
Mosaic and Christian Covenants as Old and New. Two 
more we may venture to point out. In Romans ix. 4, 
and Gal. iv. 24, the two Testaments or Covenants 
(ai δύο διαθῆκαι), typified by Sinai and the heavenly 
Jerusalem, are discussed, and the superiority of the latter 
asserted. There is, however, a passage, still more clear 
and decisive. Paul says in 2 Corinthians iii. 6: “ Who 
also (Ged) made us sufficient to be ministers of the New 


1 Cf. ix. 15, xii. 24. 2 Matt. xxyi. 28. 3 Luke xxii, 20. 


MELITO OF SARDIS. 177 


Testament ( καινῆς διαθήκης) not of the letter, but of the 
spirit” (οὐ γράμματος ἀλλὰ πνεύματος). Why does not 
Canon Westcott boldly claim this as evidence of a 
definite written New Testament, when not only is there 
reference to the name, but a distinction drawn between 
the letter and the spirit of it, from which an apologist 
might make a telling argument? But proceeding to 
contrast the glory of the New with the Old dispensation, 
the Apostle, in reference to the veil with which Moses 
covered his face, says: “ But their understandings were 
hardened : for until this very day remaineth the same 
veil in the reading of the Old Testament” (ἐπὶ τῇ 
ἀναγνώσει τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης) ;} and asif to make the 
matter still clearer he repeats in the next verse: “ But 
even unto this day when Moses is read, the veil lieth 
upon their heart.” Now here the actual reading of the 
Old Testament (παλαιᾶς διαθήκης) is distinctly men- 
tioned, and the expression quite as aptly as that of 
Melito, “implies a definite New Testament, a written 
antitype to the Old,” but even Canon Westcott would 
not dare to suggest that when the second Epistle to the 
Corinthians was composed, there was a “ definite written 
New Testament” in existence. This conclusively shows 
that the whole argument from Melito’s mention of the 
books of the Old Testament is absolutely groundless. 

On the contrary, Canon Westcott should know very 
well that the first general designation for the New 
Testament collection was “The Gospel” (εὐαγγέλιον, 
εὐαγγελικόν, εὐαγγελικά) and “The Apostle” (ἀπόστολος, 
ἀποστολικόν, ἀποστολικά), for the two portions of the 
collection, in contrast with the divisions of the Old 
Testament, the Law and the Prophets (ὁ νόμος, οἱ 


1 Verse 14, 
VOL. Il, N 


ies. SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


προφῆται), and the name New Testament occurs for the 
very first time in the third century, when Tertullian called 
the collection of Christian Scriptures Novum Instru- 
mentum and Novum Testamentum.? The term ἡ καινὴ 
διαθήκη is not, so far as we are aware, applied in the 
Greek to the “ New Testament” collection in any earlier 
work than Origen’s De Principws, ἵν. 1. It was only 
in the second half of the third century that the double 
designation τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καὶ ὁ ἀπόστολος was generally 
abatidoned. 

As to the evidence for a New Testament Canon, which 
Dr. Westcott supposes he gains by his unfounded infer- 
ence from Melito’s expression, we may judge of its value 
from the fact that he himself, like Lardner, admits : 
“ But there is little evidence in the fragment of Melito 
to show what writings he would have included in the 
new collection.”* Little evidence? There is none 
at all. 

There is, however, one singular and instructive point 
in this fragment to which Canon Westcott does not in 
any way refer, but which well merits attention as illus- 


1Cf. Ireneus, Adv. Heer., i. 3, § 6; Clemens Al., Strom., vy. 5, § 31; 
Tertullian, De Preeser., 36; Ady. Marc., iv. 2, Apolog., 18; Origen, Hom. 
xix. in Jerem. T. iii. p. 364. The Canon of Muratori says that the Pastor 
of Hermas can neither be classed ‘‘inter Prophetas neque inter Apos- 
tolos.” In a translation of the Clavis, a spurious work attributed to 
Melito himself—and Dr. Westcott admits it to be spurious (p. 198, note 1) 
—the Gospels are referred to simply by the formula ‘‘ in evangelio,” and 
the Epistles generally ‘‘in apostolo.” 

3 Ady. Prax., 15, 20; Ady. Marc., iv. 1. He says in the latter place 

*‘instrumenti,” referring to Old and New Testaments, ‘‘ vel, quod magis 
usui est dicere, testamenti.”’ 
. * Bertholdt, Hinl. a. u. N. Test., i. p. 22; Credner, Gesch. N. T., p. 
23 ff.; Hichhorn, Hinl. N. T., iv. p. 25 ff., p. 38 ff; Guericke, Gesammt- 
gesch. N. T., p. 4 f.; Reithmayr, Hinl. N. B., 1852, p. 22 ff.; Scholz, Hinl. 
H. 5. des A. u. N. T., 1845, i. p. 264; De Wette, Lehrb. Einl. A. T., 1852, 
Ρ. 8 ff. * On the Canon, p. 194. 


MELITO OF SARDIS. 179 


trating the state of religious knowledge at that time, 
and, by analogy, giving a glimpse of the difficulties 
which beset early Christian literature. We are told by 
Melito that Onesimus had frequently urged him to give 
him exact information as to the number and order of the 
books of the Old Testament, and to have extracts made 
for him from them concerning the Saviour and the faith. 
Now it is apparent that Melito, though a Bishop, was 
not able to give the desired information regarding the 
number and order of the books of the Old Testament 
himself, but that he had to make a journey to collect it. 
If this was the extent of knowledge possessed by the 
Bishop of Sardis of what was to the Fathers the only 
Holy Scripture, how ignorant his flock must have been, 
and how unfitted, both, to form any critical judgment as 
to the connection of Christianity with the Mosaic dispen- 
sation. The formation of a Christian Canon at a period 
when such ignorance was not only possible but generally 
prevailed, and when the zeal of believers led to the com- 
position of such a mass of pseudonymic and other litera- 
ture, in which every consideration of correctness and truth 
was subordinated to a childish desire for edification, must 
have been slow indeed and uncertain ; and in such an 
age fortuitous circumstances must have mainly led to 
the canonization or actual loss of many a work. So far 
from affording any evidence of the existence of a New 
Testament Canon, the fragment of Melito only shows the 
ignorance of the Bishop of Sardis as to the Canon even of 
the Old Testament. 

We have not yet finished with Melito in connection with 
Canon Westcott, however, and it is necessary to follow 
him further in order fully to appreciate the nature of the 


evidence for the New Testament Canon, which, in default 
N 2 


180 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


of better, he is obliged to offer. Eusebius gives what he 
evidently considers a complete list of the works of Melito, 
and in addition to the fragment already quoted, he 
extracts a brief passage from Melito’s work on the 
Passion, and some much longer quotations from his 
Apology, to which we have in passing referred.’ With 
these exceptions, none of Melito’s writings are now extant. 
Dr. Cureton, however, has published a Syriac version, 
with translation, of a so-called “Oration of Meliton, the 
Philosopher, who was in the presence of Antoninus 
Ceesar,’ together with five other fragments attributed 
to Melito.2 With regard to this Syriac Oration Canon 
Westcott says: “Though if it be entire, it is not the 
Apology with which Eusebius was acquainted, the 
general character of the writing leads to the belief that 
it is a genuine book of Melito of Sardis ;”*% and he 
proceeds to treat it as authentic. In the first place, we 
have so little of Melito’s genuine compositions extant, 
that it is hazardous indeed to draw any positive deduc- 
tion from the “character of the writing.” Cureton, 
Bunsen, and others maintain that this Apology is not a 
fragment, and it cannot be the work mentioned by 
Eusebius, for it does not contain the quotation from the 
authentic Orations which he has preserved, and which 
are considerable. It is, however, clear from the substance 
_ of the composition that it cannot have been spoken before 
the Emperor,* and moreover, it has in no way the cha- 
racter of an “Apology,” for there is not a single word 
in it about either Christianity or Christians. There is 


1 Euseb., H. E., iv. 26. 
? Spicilegium Syriacum, 1855, pp. 41—56; Pitra, Spicil. Solesm., 1855. 


- iL Proleg. xxxviii. ff. 


3 On the Canon, p. 194. 
4 Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., iii. p. 234 f. 


MELITO OF SARDIS. 181 


every reason to believe that it is not a genuine work 
of Melito.t There is no ground whatever for supposing 
that he wrote two Apologies, nor is this ascribed to him 
upon any other ground than the inscription of an un- 
known Syriac writer. ‘This, however, is not the only 
spurious work attributed to Melito. Of this work Canon 
Westcott says: ‘ Like other Apologies, this oration con- 
tains only indirect references to the Christian Scrip- 
tures. The allusions in it to the Gospels are extremely 
rare, and except so far as they show the influence of 
St. John’s writings, of no special interest.”? It would 
have been more correct to have said that there are no 
allusions in it to the Gospels at all. 

Canon Westcott is somewhat enthusiastic in speaking 
of Melito and his literary activity as evinced in the 
titles of his works recorded by Eusebius, and he quotes 
with great zest a fragment, said to be from a. treatise 
“On Faith,” amongst these Syriac remains, and which 
he considers to be “a very striking expansion of the 
early historic creed of the Church.”* As usual, we shall 
give the entire fragment: “We have made collections 
from the Law and the Prophets relative to those things 
which have been declared respecting our Lord Jesus 
Christ, that we may prove to your love that he is perfect 
Reason, the Word of God ; who was begotten before the 
light ; who was Creator together with the Father ; who 
was the Fashioner of man; who was all in all; who 
among the Patriarchs was Patriarch ; who in the Law 
was the Law; among the Priests chief Priest ; among 
Kings Governor; among the Prophets the Prophet ; 


1 Donaldson, ib., iii. p. 234; Freppel, Les Apologistes, 2 ser. p. 374 f. ; 
Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii. p. 478. 
2 On the Canon, p. 194. ’ 80 ῃ the Canon, p. 196, 


182 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


among the Angels Archangel; in the voice the Word ; 
among ‘Spirits Spirit; in the Father the Son; in God 
the King for ever and ever. For this was he who was 
Pilot to Noah; who conducted Abraham; who was 
bound with Isaac; who was in ‘exile with Jacob; who 
was sold with Joseph; who was captain with Moses; 
who was the Divider of the inheritance with Jesus the 
son of Nun; who in David and the Prophets foretold 
his own sufferings ; who was incarnate in the Virgin ; 
who was born at Bethlehem ; who was wrapped in swad- 
dling clothes in the manger; who was seen of shepherds ; 
who was glorified of angels ; who was worshipped by 
the Magi; who was pointed out by John; who assem- 
bled the Apostles ; who preached the kingdom; who 
healed the maimed ; who gave light to the blind ; who 
raised the dead; who appeared in the Temple; who 
was not believed by the people ; who was betrayed by 
Judas ; who was laid hold on by the Priests ; who was 
condemned by Pilate ; who was pierced in the flesh ; 
who was hanged upon the tree ; who was buried in the 
earth ; who rose from the dead; who appeared to the 
Apostles; who ascended to heaven; who sitteth on the 
right hand of the Father; who is the Rest of those who 
are departed ; the Recoverer of those who are in dark- 
ness; the Deliverer of those who are captives; the 
Finder of those who have gone astray ; the Refuge of the 
afflicted ; the Bridegroom of the Church ; the Charioteer 
of the Cherubim ; the Captain of the Angels ; God who 
is of God; the Son who is of the Father; Jesus Christ, 
the King for ever and ever. Amen.”? 

Canon Westcott commences his commentary upon 


1 Cureton, Spicil. Syriacum, p. 53f.; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 196 f.; 
Pitra, Spicil. Solesm., ii. Proleg. lix. f. 


MELITO OF SARDIS. 183 


this passage with the remark: “No writer could 
state the fundamental truths of Christianity more 
unhesitatingly, or quote the Scriptures of the Old and 
New Testaments with more perfect confidence.”! We 
need not do more than remark that there is not a single 
quotation in the fragment, and that there is not a single 
one of the references to Gospel history or to ecclesiastical 
dogmas which might not have been derived from the 
Epistles of Paul, from any of the forms of the Gospel 
according to the Hebrews, the Protevangelium of James, 
or from many another apocryphal Gospel, or the oral 
teaching of the Church. It is singular, however, that 
the only hint which Canon Westcott gives of the more 
than doubtful authenticity of this fragment consists of 
the introductory remark, after alluding to the titles of 
his genuine and supposititious writings : ‘‘ Of these mul- 
tifarious writings very few fragments remain in the 
original Greek, but the general tone of them is so decided 
in its theological character as to go far to establish the 
genuineness of those which are poner ent in the Syriac 
translation.”? 

Now, the fragment “On Faith” which has just been 
quoted is one of. the five Syriac pieces of Dr. Cureton to 
which we have referred, and which even Apologists 
agree “cannot be regarded as genuine.”* It is well 
known that there were many writers in the early Church 
bearing the names of Melito and Miletius or Meletius,* 
which were frequently confounded. Of these five Syriac 
fragments one bears the superscription : “Of Meliton, 

1 On the Canon, p. 197. 

2 On the Canon, p. 196. 

3 Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., iii. p. 236. 


4 Woog, Dissert., i. § 2; οἵ, Donaldson, ib., iii. p. 234, 236; Cureton, 
Spicil. Syriac., p. 96 f. 


184 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


Bishop of the city of Attica,” and another, “Of the holy 
Meliton, Bishop of Utica,” and Cureton himself evidently 
leant to the opinion that they are not by our Melito, but 
by a Meletius or Melitius, Bishop of Sebastopolis in 
Pontus.! The third fragment is said to be taken from a 
discourse “ On the Cross,” which was unknown to Euse- 
‘bius, and from its doctrinal peculiarities was probably 
written after his time.? Another fragment purports to 
be from a work on the “Soul and Body ;” and the last 
one from the treatise “ On Faith,” which we are discus- 
sing. The last two works are mentioned by Eusebius, 
but these fragments, besides coming in such suspicious 
- company, must for every reason be pronounced spurious.* 
They have in fact no attestation whatever except that of 
the Syriac translator, who is unknown, and which there- 
fore is worthless, and, on the other hand, the whole 
style and thought of the fragments are unlike anything 
else of Melito’s time, and clearly indicate a later stage of 
theological development.* Moreover, in the Mechitarist 
Library at Venice there is a shorter version of the same 
passage in a Syriac MS., and an Armenian version of 
the extract as given above, in both of which the passage 
is distinctly ascribed to Irenzeus.> Besides the Oration 
and the five Syriac fragments, we have other two works 
extant falsely attributed to Melito, one, “De Transitu 
Virginis Marie,” describing the miraculous presence οὗ. 
the Apostles at the death of Mary ;®° and the other, “ De 
Actibus Joannis Apostoli,” relates the history of miracles 

1 Spicil. Syriac., p. 96 f. 

2 Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., iii. p. 237. 

3 Donaldson, ib., 111. p. 227. 4 Ib., ii. p. 236. 

. They are given by Pitra, Spicil. Solesm., i. p. 3 ff. 


§ It is worthy of remark that the aus is introduced into all these 
fragments in a manner quite foreign to the period at which Melito lived. 


CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS. 185 


performed by the Apostle John. Both are universally 
admitted to be spurious, as are a few other fragments 
also bearing his name. Melito did not escape from the 
falsification to which many of his more distinguished 
predecessors and contemporaries were victims, through 
the literary activity and unscrupulous religious zeal of 
the first three or four centuries of our era. 


2. 


Very little is known regarding Claudius Apollinaris to 
whom we must now for a moment turn. Eusebius 
informs us that he was Bishop of Hierapolis,? and in this 
he is supported by the fragment of a letter of Serapion 
Bishop of Antioch preserved to us by him, which refers 
to Apollinaris as the “most blessed.”* Tischendorf, 
without any precise date, sets him down as contemporary 
with Tatian and Theophilus (whom he calculates to have 
written his work addressed to Autolycus about A.D. 180— 
181).* Eusebius® mentions that, like his somewhat earlier 
contemporary Melito of Sardis, Apollinaris presented an 
“ Apology” to the Emperor Marcus Antoninus, and he 
gives us further materials for a date® by stating that 
Claudius Apollinaris, probably in his Apology, refers to 
the miracle of the “Thundering Legion,” which is said 


1 Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., iii. p. 238; Woog, Dissert., ii. ~ 
§ 25; Pitra, Spicil. Solesm., ii. Proleg. xxxi. f. 

2H. E., iv. 21, 26. 3 Tb., γ. 19. 

4 Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 16, anm. 1. 

5H. E., iv. 26, 27; cf. Hieron., De Vir. Π]., 26. 

6 Eusebius himself sets him down in his Chronicle as flourishing in 
the eleyenth year of Marcus, or A.D. 171, a year later than he dates 
Melito. 


186 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


to have occurred during the war of Marcus Antoninus 
against the Marcomanni in A.D. 174.1 The date of his 
writings may, therefore, with moderation be fixed between 
AD. 177—180.? 

Eusebius and others mention many works composed 
by him,? none of which, however, are extant; and 
we have only to deal with two brief fragments in 
connection with the Paschal controversy, which are 
ascribed to Apollinaris in the Paschal Chronicle of 
Alexandria. This controversy, as to the day upon which 
the Christian Passover should be celebrated, broke out 
about A.D. 170, and long continued to divide the 
Church. In the preface to the Paschal Chronicle, a 
work of the seventh century, the unknown chronicler 
says: “ But Apollinaris, the most holy Bishop of Hiera- 
polis, in Asia, who lived near apostolic times, taught the 
same things in his work on the Passover, saying this : 
‘here are some, however, who through ignorance raise 
contentions regarding these matters in a way which 


1 Eusebius, H. E., v. 5; Mosheim, Inst. Hist. Eccles., Book i. cent. ii. 
part. i. ch. 1. ὃ 9. Apollinaris states that in consequence of this miracle, 
the Emperor had bestowed upon the Legion the name of the ‘‘Thunder- 
ing Legion.” ‘We cannot here discuss this subject, but the whole story 
illustrates the rapidity with which a fiction is magnified into truth by 
religious zeal, and is surrounded by false circumstantial evidence. Cf, 
Tertullian, Apol. 5, ad Scapulam, 4; Dion Cassius, lib. 55; Scaliger, 
Animadv. in Euseb., p. 223 f.; cf. Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., 
jii. p. 241 f. 

2 Baur, Unters. kan. Evv. p. 356 ; Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., 
iii. p. 240; Lardner, Credibility, &c., Works, ii. p. 294; Newman, Essays 
on Miracles, 1870, p. 241 ; Scholten, Das Evang. n. Johann., 1867, p. 14 ff. ; 
Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 106: Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 164, p. 31 f. 

8 Eusebius, H. E., iv. 27; cf. 26, vy. 19; Hieron., Epist. ad Magnum 
Ep., 83; Theodoret, Her. Fab. 11. 21, iii. 2; Photius, Biblioth. Cod. 
14. ; 

4 Hilgenfeld, Der Paschastreit, p. 250 ff.; Die Evangelien, p. 844 ff.; 
Baur, K. G. drei erst. Jahrh., p. 156 ff.; Unters. kan. Evy., p. 340 f., p. 
356 f.; Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 31 f. 


CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS. 187 


should be pardoned, for ignorance must not be pursued 
with accusation, but requires instruction. And they 
say that the Lord, together with his disciples, ate the 
lamb (τὸ πρόβατον) on the 14th Nisan, but himself 
suffered on the great day of unleavened bread. And 
they state (διηγοῦνται) that Matthew says precisely what 
they have understood ; hence their understanding of it 
is at variance with the law, and according to them the 
Gospels seem to contradict each other.’”? The last sen- 
tence is interpreted as pointing out that the first synoptic 
Gospel is supposed to be at variance with our fourth 
Gospel. This fragment is claimed by Tischendorf? and 
others as evidence of the general acceptance at that 
time both of the Synoptics and the fourth Gospel. 
Canon Westcott, with obvious exaggeration, says : “ The 
Gospels are evidently quoted as books certainly known 
and recognized ; their authority is placed on the same 
footing as the Old Testament.”* The Gospels are referred 
to merely for the settlement of the historical fact as to 
the day on which the last Passover had been eaten, a 
narrative of which they contained. 

There are, however, very grave reasons for doubting 
the authenticity of the two fragments ascribed to Apolli- 


1 Καὶ ᾿Απολινάριος δὲ ὁ ὁσιώτατος ἐπίσκοπος ἹΙεραπόλεως τῆς ᾿Ασίας, ὁ ἐγγὺς 
τῶν ἀποστολικῶν χρόνων γεγονὼς, ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ Πάσχα λόγῳ τὰ παραπλησία 
ἐδίδαξε, λέγων οὕτως" Εἰσὶ τοίνυν οἱ δι’ ἄγνοιαν φιλονεικοῦσι περὶ τούτων, 
συγγνωστὸν πρᾶγμα πεπονθότες" ἄγνοια γὰρ οὐ κατηγορίαν ἀναδέχεται, ἀλλὰ 
διδαχῆς προσδεῖται. καὶ λέγουσιν ὅτι τῇ ιδ΄ τὸ πρόβατον μετὰ τῶν μαθητῶν ἔφαγεν 
ὁ Κύριος" τῇ δὲ μεγάλῃ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν ἀζύμων αὐτὸς ἔπαθεν" καὶ διηγοῦνται Ματθαῖον 
οὕτω λέγειν ὡς νενοήκασιν" ὅθεν ἀσύμφωνός τε νόμῳ ἡ νόησις αὐτῶν᾽ καὶ στασιάζειν 
δοκεῖ κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς τὰ εὐαγγέλια. Preefat. Chron. Pasch. sive Alex. ed. Du- 
cange, p. 6; Routh, Reliq. Sacr., i. p. 160. We need not quote the second 
fragment here, as it has nothing to do with our Synoptics ; but, indeed, 
neither of the passages being by Apollinaris, it is scarcely necessary to 
refer to the other at all. 

2 Wann wurden, u. 8. w., p. 18. 3 On the Canon, p. 199. 


188 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


naris, and we must mention that these doubts are much 
less those of German critics, who, on the whole, either 
do not raise the question at all, or hastily dispose of it, 
than doubts entertained by the most orthodox Apologists, 
who see little ground for accepting them as genuine.’ 
Eusebius, who gives a catalogue of the works of Apol- 
linaris which had reached him,? was evidently not 
acquainted with any writing of Apollinaris on the Pass- 
over. It is argued, however, that “there is not any 
sufficient ground for doubting the genuineness of these 
fragments ‘On Easter,’ in the fact that Eusebius men- 
tions no such book by Apollinaris.”? It is quite true that 
Eusebius does not pretend to give a complete list of these 
works, but merely says that there are many preserved by 
many, and that he mentions those with which he had 
met.* At the same time, entering with great interest, as 
he does, into the Paschal Controversy, and acquainted 
with the principal writings on the subject,? it would 
indeed have been strange had he not met with the work 
itself, or at least with some notice of it in the works of 
others. That he knew nothing of it, however, either 
directly or indirectly, is clear, for he states that ‘the 
Churches of all Asia”® kept the 14th Nisan, and 
Apollinaris as an eminent exception must have held a 


1 Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit, and Doctr., 111. p. 247 f.; Lardner, Credi- 
bility, &c., Works, ii. p. 296; Tillemont, Mém. Hist. Eccles., ii. p. iii. p. 
91; Routh, Reliq. Sacree, i. p. 167 f. 

2H, Bay. 21. 

3 Westcott, On the Canon, p. 198, note 3; cf. Baur, Unters. kan. Evv., 
p. 340 f. This is the only remark which Dr. Westcott makes as to any 
doubt of the authenticity of these fragments. Tischendorf does not men- 
tion a doubt at all. ; 

4 τοῦ δὲ ᾿Απολιναρίου πολλῶν παρὰ πολλοῖς σωζομένων, τὰ εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐλθόντα 
ἐστὶ rade’ κιτιλ. H. E., iy. 27. 

5 Fusebius, H. E., γ. 23, 24. €76.,.¥. 23, 


CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS. 189 


prominent position, and must have been quoted in most 
controversial works on the subject, had he really written 
anything on the subject or taken any part in the discus- 
sion. Eusebius was acquainted with the work of Melito 
on the Passover, and quotes it,’ which must have referred 
to his contemporary and antagonist,” Apollinaris, had 
he written such a work as this fragment denotes. Not 
only, however, does Eusebius know nothing of his 
having composed such a work, but neither do Theodoret,? 
_Jerome,* Photius,® nor other writers who enumerate 
other of his works, nor is he mentioned in any way 
by Clement of Alexandria, Irenzeus, nor by any of those 
who took part in the great controversy.® | 

It is stated that all the Churches of Asia, including 
some of the most distinguished members of the Church, 
such as Polycarp, and his own contemporary Melito, 
celebrated the Christian festival on the 14th Nisan, the 
practice almost universal, therefore, in the country: in 
which Claudius Apollinaris is supposed to write this 
fragment.’ How is it possible, therefore, that this 
isolated convert to the views of Victor and the Roman 
Church, could write of so vast and distinguished a 
majority as “some who through ignorance raised con- 
tentions” on the point, when not only all the Asiatic 
Churches at that time were agreed to keep the four- 
teenth of Nisan, and in doing so raised no new con- 
tention at all, but, as Polycrates represented, followed 


1 Kusebius, H. E., iv. 26. 

2 Of. Hilgenfeld, Der Paschastreit, p. 256. 

3 Heoret. Fab., ii. 21, iii. 2. 

4 Epist. ad Magnum Ep., p. 83. 5 Biblioth. Cod., 14. 

δ Of. Eusebius, H. E., v. 28, 24; cf. iv. 26; Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. 
and Doctr., iii. p. 247 ff. 

7 Eusebius, H. E., vy. 28, 24; Hilgenfeld, Der Paschastreit, p. 274 ff. 


190 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


the tradition handed down to them from their Fathers, 
and authorized by the practice of the Apostle John 
himself #1 It is impossible that the “most holy Bishop of 
Hierapolis” could thus have written of the Bishops 
and Churches of Asia. There is literally no evidence 
whatever that Apollinaris sided in this discussion with 
the Roman party, and had he done so it is scarcely’ 
possible that so eminent an exception to the practice 
of the Asiatic Churches could have been passed over in 
total silence both by the advocates of the 14th Nisan 
and by those who opposed it.? 

Whilst none of his contemporaries nor writers about 
his own time seem to have known that Apollinaris wrote 
any work from which these fragments can have been 
taken, or that he ever took any part in the Paschal 
controversy at all, the only ground we have for attri- 
buting them to him is the Preface to the Paschal 
Chronicle of Alexandria, written by an unknown author 
of the seventh century, some five hundred years after 
the time of Apollinaris, whose testimony has rightly 
been described as “ worth almost nothing.”* Most cer- 
tainly many passages preserved by this author are in- 
authentic, and generally allowed to beso.* The two frag- 
ments have by many been conjecturally ascribed to 
Pierius of Alexandria,® a writer of the third century, 


1 Eusebius, H. E., v. 24; ef. Hilgenfeld, Der Paschastreit, p. 256; Baur, 
K. G. d. drei ersten Jahrb., p. 157. 

2 Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., iii. p. 247 f. 

3 Donaldson, ib., iii. p. 247; Lardner, Credibility, &c., Works, ii. 
p. 296. 

4Dr. Donaldson rightly calls a fragment in the Chronicle ascribed to 
Melito, ‘‘ unquestionably spurious.” Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., iii. 
p. 231. 

5 Tillemont, Mém. Hist. Eccles., ii. part iii. p. 91; Lardner, Credibility 
&c., Works, 11. p. 296; Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., iii. 


Ῥ. 248 f.; Routh, Reliq. Sacre, i. p. 167 f. 


ATHENAGORAS. 191 


who composed a work on Easter, but there is no evidence 
on the point. On the other hand there is such exceed- 
ingly slight reason for attributing these fragments to 
Claudius Apollinaris, and so many strong grounds for 
believing that he cannot have written them, that they 
have no material value as evidence for the antiquity of 
the Gospels. 


3. 


We know little or nothing of Athenagoras. He is 
not mentioned by Eusebius, and our only information 
regarding him is derived from a fragment of Philip 
Sidetes, a writer of the fifth century, first published by 
Dodwell.! Philip states that he was the first leader of 
the school of Alexandria during the time of Adrian and 
Antoninus, to the latter of whom he addressed his 
Apology, and he further says that Clement of Alexandria 
was his disciple, and that Pantznus was the disciple of 
Clement. Part of this statement we know to be erro- 
neous, and the Christian History of Philip, from which 
the fragment is taken, is very slightingly spoken of 
both by Socrates? and Photius. No reliance can be 
placed upon this information.* 

The only works ascribed to Athenagoras are an 
Apology—called an Embassy, awpeoBeta—bearing the 
inscription : “The Embassy of Athenagoras the Athenian, 
a philosopher and a Christian, concerning Christians, to 


1 Append. ad Diss. Iren., p. 488. The extract from Philip’s History is 
made by an unknown author. 

HH. ΠΝ νέαν, 3 Bibl. Cod., xxxv. p. 21. 

* Basnage, Ann. Polit. Eccl., 176, 86; Lardner, Works, ii. p. 180; 
Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., iii. p. 108 f. 


192 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


the Emperors Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and Lucius 
Aurelius Commodus, Armeniaci Sarmatici and, above all, 
philosophers” ; and further, a Treatise: “On the Resur- 
rection of the Dead.” A quotation from the Apology 
by Methodius in his work on the Resurrection of the 
Body, is preserved by Epiphanius' and Photius,? and 
this, the mention by Philip Sidetes, and the inscription 
by an unknown hand, just quoted, are all the evidence 
we possess regarding the Apology. We have no 
evidence at all regarding the treatise on the Resur- 
rection, beyond the inscription. The authenticity of 
_ neither, therefore, stands on very sure grounds.3 The 
address of the Apology and internal evidence furnished 
by it, into which we need not go, show that it could not 
have been written before A.D. 176—177, the date assigned 
to it by most critics,* although there are many reasons 
for dating it some years later. 

In the six lines which Tischendorf devotes to Athena- 
goras, he says that the Apology contains “several quo- 
tations from Matthew and Luke,’® without, however, 
indicating them. In the very few sentences which Canon 
Westcott vouchsafes to him, he says: “Athenagoras 
quotes the words of our Lord as they stand in St. 
Matthew four times, and appears to allude to passages 


1 Heer., Lxiv. 21. 3 Bibl. Cod., ccxxxiv. p. 908. 

3 Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., iii. p. 114 f. 

4 Anger, Synops. Ev. Proleg., xxxii.; Basnage, Annal. Polit. Eccles., 
176, § 6; Credner, Beitrage, i. p. 53; Fabricius, (A.D. 177—180), Bibl. 
Greec., vi. p. 86; Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., iii. p. 111 f. ; 
Kirchhofer, Quellensamml., p. 473; Lardner, (A.D. 177—178), Works, ii. 
p. 181; Mosheim, Diss. de vera stat. Apol. Athenag. ; Reuss, Gesch. N*T., 
p- 290; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 109; Tillemont, Mém. Hist. 
Eccles., t. ii. art. 8, note x. ; Tischendorf, Wann wurden, u. 5. w., p. 19; 
Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 34; De Wette. (+ 150), Hinl. N.T., 1852, 
p. 26. 

5 Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 19. 


ATHENAGORAS. 193 


in St. Mark and St. John, but he nowhere men- 
tions the name of an Evangelist.”’ Here the third 
Synoptic is not mentioned. In another place he says : 
“Athenagoras at Athens, and Theophilus at Antioch, 
make use of the same books generally, and treat them 
with the same respect ;” and in a note: “ Athenagoras 
quotes the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. John.”? 
Here it will be observed that also the Gospel of Mark 
is quietly dropped out of sight, but still the positive 
manner in which it is asserted that Athenagoras quotes 
from “the Gospel of St. Matthew,” without further 
explanation, is calculated to mislead. We shall refer to 
each of the supposed quotations. : 
Athenagoras not only does not mention any Gospel, 
but singularly enough he never once introduces the 
name of “Christ” into the works ascribed to him, and 
all the “ words of the Lord” referred to are introduced 
simply by the indefinite “he says,’ φησί, and without 
any indication whatever of a written source.? The only 
exception to this is an occasion on which he puts into 
the mouth of “the Logos” a saying which is not found 
in any of our Gospels, The first passage to which 
Canon Westcott alludes is the following, which we 
contrast with the supposed parallel in the Gospel :— 


ATHENAGORAS, | Marr. vy. 39—40. 

For we have learnt not only not But I say unto you: that ye 
to render a blow, nor to go to law | resist not evil: but whosoever shall 
(δικάζεσθαι) with those who spoil | smite thee on thy right cheek (ce 
and plunder us, but to those who | ἐαπίσει ἐπὶ τὴν δεξιάν σου σιαγόνα) 
inflict'a blow on one side (κατὰ | turn tohim the other also. And if 
κόῤῥης προσπηλακίζωσι) also to pre- | any man be minded to sue thee at 
sent the other side of the headin | the law (κριθῆναι) and take away 





1 On the Canon, p. 103. 2 70., p. 804, and note 2. 
3 Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Dit. end Dectr., iii. p. 172. 
VOL. IL ° 


194 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


ATHENAGORAS. MartrT. v. 39—40. 
turn forsmiting ; and tothose who (λαβεῖν) thy coat, let him have (ἄφες 
take away (ἀφαιροῖντο) the coat, also αὐτῷ) thy cloke also.* 


to give besides (ém13:3évar)the cloke.! 

It is scarcely possible to imagine a greater difference 
in language conveying a similar idea than that which 
exists between Athenagoras and the first Gospel, and the 
parallel passage in Luke is in many respects still more 
distant. No echo of the words in Matthew has lingered 
in the ear of the writer, for he employs utterly different 
phraseology throughout, and nothing can be more certain 
than the fact that there is not a linguistic trace in it of 


acquaintance with our Synoptics. 
The next passage which is referred to is as follows: 


ATHENAGORAS. Matt. v. 44—435. 
What, then, are those precepts 
in which we are instructed ? 

I say unto you: love your But I say unto you, Love your 
enemies, bless them that curse, enemies, bless them that curse you,* 
do good to them that hate you, and 
pray for them that persecute you: | pray for them that* persecute you : 
that ye may be sons of your Father | That ye may be sonsof your Father 
which is in the heavens who (és) | which is in heaven: for (ὅτι) he 
maketh his sun, &c.* maketh his sun, &c.° 


hl... οὐ μόνον τὸ ἀντιπαίειν, οὐδὲ μὴν δικάζεσθαι τοῖς ἄγουσι καὶ ἁρπάζουσι" 
ἡμᾶς, μεμαθηκότες" ἀλλὰ τοῖς μὲν, κἂν κατὰ κόῤῥης προσπηλακίζωσι, καὶ τὸ ἕτερον 
παίειν παρέχειν τῆς κεφαλῆς μέρος" τοῖς δὲ, εἰ τὸν χιτῶνα ἀφαιροῖντο, ἐπιδιδόναι 
καὶ τὸ ἱμάτιον, κατιλ. Legatio pro Christianis, § 1. 

* Ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν μὴ ἀντιστῆναι τῷ πονηρῷ᾽ ἀλλ᾽ ὅστις σε ῥαπίσει ἐπὶ τὴν 
δεξιάν σου σιαγόνα, στρέψον αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν ἄλλην: καὶ τῷ θέλοντί σοι κριθῆναι καὶ 
τὸν χιτῶνά σου λαβεῖν, ἄφες αὐτῷ καὶ τὸ ἱμάτιον. Matt.v. 99,40 ; cf. Luke yi.29. 

5 Λέγω ὑμῖν ᾿Αγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν, εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς καταρωμένους, 
προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν διωκόντων ὑμᾶς, ὅπως γένησθε υἱοὶ τοῦ Πατρὸς ὑμῶν τοῦ 
ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, ὃς τὸν ἥλιον αὐτοῦ ἀνατέλλει, κιτιλ. Leg. pro Christ., § 11. 

* The expressions εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς καταρωμένους ὑμᾶς, καλῶς ποιεῖτε τοὺς 
μισοῦντας ὑμᾶς, ‘bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate 
you,” are omitted from some of the oldest MSS., but we do not know 
any in which the first of these two doubtful phrases is retained, as in 
Athenagoras, and the ‘‘ do good to them that hate you,” is omitted. 

5. The phrase ἐπηρεαζόντων ὑμᾶς, ““ despitefully use you,” is omitted from 
many ancient codices. © 

5. Ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν καὶ προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ 








ATHENAGORAS., 195 


The same idea is continued in the next chapter, in 
which the following passage occurs : 


ATHENAGORAS, Mart. v. 46. 

For if ye love (ἀγαπᾶτε), he says, For if ye should love (ἀγαπήσητε) 
(φησί) them which love, and lend | them which love you, what-reward 
to them which lend to you, what | have ye ?? 
reward shall ye have ? ! | 


There is no parallel at all in the ‘first Gospel to the 
phrase “and lend to them that lend to you,’ and in 
Luke vi. 34, the passage reads: and if ye lend to them 
of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye ?” 
(καὶ ἐὰν Savilere παρ᾽ ὧν ἐλπίζετε λαβεῖν, ποία ὑμῖν χάρις 
ἐστίν ;) It is evident, therefore, that there are decided 
variations here, and that the passage of Athenagoras 
does not agree with either of the Synoptics. We have 
seen the persistent variation in the quotations from the 
“Sermon on the Mount” which occur in Justin,? and 
there is no part of the discourses of Jesus more certain 
to have been preserved by living Christian tradition, or 
to have been recorded in every form of -Gospel. The 
differences in these passages from our Synoptic present 
the same features as mark the several versions of the 
same discourse in our first and third Gospels, and 
indicate a distinct source. The same remarks also apply 
to the next passage : 


ATHENAGORAS. MATT. Vv. 28. 
For whosoever, he says (φησί), But I say unto you, That whoso- 
looketh on a woman to lust after | ever looketh on a woman to lust 


τῶν διωκόντων ὑμᾶς" ὅπως γένησθε υἱοὶ rod Πατρὸς ὑμῶν τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς, ὅτι τὸν 
ἥλιον αὐτοῦ ἀνατέλλει, κιτιλ. Matt. y. 44, 45. 
1 ᾿Ἐὰν γὰρ ἀγαπᾶτε, φησὶν, τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας, καὶ δανείζετε τοῖς δανείζουσιν ὑμῖν, 
τίνα μισθὸν ἕξετε; Leg. pro Chr., § 12. 
3 Ἐὰν yap ἀγαπήσητε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς, τίνα μισθὸν ἔχετε ; Matt. v. 40, 
3. Justin likewise has ἀγαπᾶτε for ἀγαπήσητε in this passage. 
ο 2 


196 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


ATHENAGORAS. Marr. τ. 28. 
her, hath committed adultery(pepoi- | after her, hath committed adultery 
xevxev) already in his heart.! | with her (ἐμοίχευσεν αὐτὴν) already 
| in his heart.? 


The omission of αὐτὴν, “ with her,” is not accidental, 
but is an important variation in the sense, which we have 
already met with in the Gospel used by Justin Martyr.* 
There is another passage, in the next chapter, the 
parallel to which follows closely on this in the great 
Sermon as reported in our first Gospel, to which Canon 
Westcott does not refer, but which we must point 
out : 

ATHENAGORAS. Marr. νυ. 32. 

For whosoever, he says (nat), But I say unto you, That whoso- 
putteth away his wife and marrieth | ever putteth away his wife, saving 
another committeth adultery.‘ for the cause of fornication, causeth 
her to commit adultery : and whoso- 


ever shall marry her when divorced 
committeth adultery.* 





It is evident that the passage in the Apology is quite 
different from that in the “Sermon on the Mount” in 
the first Synoptic. If we compare it with Matt. xix. 9, 
there still remains the express limitation μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ, 
which Athenagoras does not admit, his own express doc- 
trine being in accordance with the positive declaration in 
his text. In the immediate context, indeed, he insists 
that even to marry another wife after the death of the 


1 Ὃ yap βλέπων, φησὶ, γυναῖκα πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι αὐτῆς, ἤδη μεμοίχευκεν ἐν 
τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ. Leg. pro Christ., § 32. 

2 ᾿Εγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ βλέπων γυναῖκα πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι αὐτὴν ἤδη 
ἐμοίχευσεν αὐτὴν én τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ. 

3 Apol., 1. 15. 

**Os yap ἂν ἀπολύσῃ, φησὶ, τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην, μοιχᾶται. 
Leg. pro Chr., § 33. 

5. Ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας 
ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχευθῆναι, καὶ ὃς ἂν ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσῃ, μοιχᾶται: Matt. v. 32. 
πᾶς 6 ἀπολύων is the older and better reading, but we give ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ 
as fayouring the similarity. 


ATHENAGORAS. 197 


first is cloaked adultery. We find in Luke xvi. 18, the 
reading of Athenagoras,! but with important linguistic 
variations : 


ATITENAGORAS. LUKE xvi. 18. 
Ὃς yap ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα Πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα 
αὑτοῦ, καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται. αὐτοῦ καὶ γαμῶν ἑτέραν μοιχεύει. 


Athenagoras clearly cannot have derived this from 
Luke, but the sense of the passage in that Gospel, 
compared with the passage in Matthew xix. 9, makes it 
certain that the reading of Athenagoras was derived 
from a source combining the language of the one and 
the thought of the other. In Mark x. 11, the reading is 
nearer that of Athenagoras and confirms our conclusion, 
but the addition there of ἐπ᾿ αὐτήν “against her” after 
μοιχᾶται, proves that his source was not that Gospel. 

We may at once give the last passage which is 
supposed to be a quotation from our Synoptics, and 
it is that which is affirmed to be a reference to Mark. 
Athenagoras states in almost immediate context with the 
above: “for in the beginning God made one man and 
one woman.”? ‘This is compared with Mark x. 6: “ But 
from the beginning of the creation God made them male 
and female”’ : 


ATHENAGORAS. Mark x. 6. 
"Ort ἐν ἀρχῇ 6 Θεὸς Eva ἄνδρα ἔπλασε ᾿Απὸ δὲ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως ἄρσεν καὶ 
καὶ μίαν γυναῖκα. θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς ὁ Θεύς. 


Now this passage differs materially in every way 
from the second Synoptic. The reference to “ one man” 
and “one woman” is used in a totally different sense, 
and enforces the previous assertion that a man may only 
marry one wife. Such an argument directly derived — 


1 Lardner, indeed, points to the passage as a quotation from the third 
Gospel. Works, ii. p. 183. 
2 Leg. pro Chr., § 33. 


198 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


from the old Testament is perfectly natural to one who, 
like Athenagoras, derived all his authority from it alone. 
It is simply absurd to claim it as evidence of the use 
of Mark. 

Now we must repeat that Athenagoras does not name 
any source from which he derives his knowledge of 
the sayings of Jesus. These sayings are all from the 
Sermon on the Mount, and are introduced by the in- 
definite phrase φησί, and it is remarkable that all differ 
distinctly from the parallels in our Gospels. The whole 
must be taken together as coming from one source, 
and there is the clearest indication that his source was 
different from our Gospels. Dr. Donaldson states the 
case with great fairness: ‘“ Athenagoras makes no allusion 
to the inspiration of any of the New Testament writers. 
He does not mention one of them by name, and one 
cannot be sure that he quotes from any except Paul. 
All the passages taken from the Gospels are parts of our 
Lord’s discourses, and may have come down to Athen- 
agoras by tradition.”1 He might have added that they 
might also have been derived from the gospel according 
to the Hebrews or many another collection now un- 
happily lost. 

One circumstance strongly confirming this conclusion 
is the fact already mentioned, that Athenagoras, in the 
same chapter in which one of these quotations occurs, 
introduces an apocryphal saying of the Logos, and con- 
nects it with previous sayings by the expression “The 
Logos again (πάλιν) saying to us.” This can only refer 
to the sayings previously introduced by the indefinite 

1 Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., ἜΣ p- 172. 


De Wette says regarding Athenagoras: ‘‘ The quotations of evangelical 
passages prove nothing.” LHinl. A. T., 1852, p. 25. 


ATHENAGORAS. 199 


φησί. The sentence, which is in reference to the 
Christian salutation of peace, is as follows: “The Logos 
again saying to us: ‘If any one kiss.a second time 
because it has given him gratification (he sins) ;’ and 
adding : ‘Thus the kiss or rather the salutation must be 
used with care, as, if it be defiled even a little by thought, 
it excludes us from the life eternal.’”’ This saying, 
which is directly attributed to the Logos, is not found in 
our Gospels. ‘The only natural deduction is that it 
comes from the same source as the other sayings, and 
that source was not our synoptic Gospels.’ 

The total absence of any allusion to New Testament 
Scriptures in Athenagoras,* however, is rendered more 
striking and significant by the marked expression of his 
belief in the inspiration of the Old Testament. He 
appeals to the prophets for testimony as to the truth of 
the opinions of Christians: men, he says, who spoke by 
the inspiration of God, whose Spirit moved their mouths 
to express God’s will as musical instruments are played 
upon: * “ But since the voices of the prophets support 
our arguments, [ think that you, being most learned and 
wise, cannot be ignorant of the writings of Moses, or of 
those of Isaiah and Jeremiah and of the other prophets, 
who being raised in ecstasy above the reasoning that was 
in themselves, uttered the things which were wrought in 


* Πάλιν ἡμῖν λέγοντος τοῦ Λόγου" ᾿Ἐάν tis διὰ τοῦτο ἐκ δευτέρου καταφιλήσῃ; 
ὅτι ἤρεσεν αὐτῷ" καὶ ἐπιφέροντος: Οὕτως οὖν ἀκριβώσασθαι τὸ φίλημα, μᾶλλον 
δὲ τὸ προσκύνημα δεῖ: ὡς εἴπου μικρὸν τῇ διανοίᾳ παραθολωθείν, ἔξω ἡμᾶς τῆς 
αἰωνίου τιθέντος ζωῆς. Leg. pro Christ., § 32. 

> Cf. Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 34; Lardner, Works, ii. p. 187, 
§ xx. f.; Reuss, Gesch. N. T., p. 290; Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit, and 
Doctr., iii. p. 172 ἢ 

% Donaldson, Hist, Chr. Lit. and Doctyr., iii. p, 172; Credner, Beitaiige, 
i. p. 54 f.; Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 34. 

* Leg. pro Christ., § 7. 


200 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


them, when the Divine Spirit moved them, the Spirit 
using them as a flute player would blow into the flute.”’ 
He thus enunciates the theory of the mechanical inspira- 
tion of the writers of the Old Testament, in the clearest 
manner,? and it would indeed have been strange, on the 
supposition that he extended his views of inspiration to 
any of the Scriptures of the New Testament, that he 
never names a single one of them, nor indicates to the 
Emperors in the same way, as worthy of their attention, 
any of these Scriptures along with the Law and the 
Prophets. There can be no doubt that he nowhere 
gives reason for supposing that he regarded any 
other writings than the Old Testament as inspired or 
“ Holy Scripture.”* 


4. 


In the 17th year of the reign of Marcus Aurelius, be- 
tween the 7th March, 177-178, a fierce persecution was, 
it is said,* commenced against the Christians in Gaul, 
and more especially at Vienne and Lyons, during the 
course of which the aged Bishop Pothinus, the predecessor 
of Irenzeus, suffered martyrdom for the faith. The two 
communities some time after addressed an Epistle to their 
brethren in Asia and Phrygia, and also to Eleutherus, 
Bishop of Rome,* relating the events which had occurred, 
and the noble testimony which had been borne to Christ 
by the numerous martyrs who had been cruelly put 


1 Leg. pro Christ., § 9. 

? Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., iii. p. 171 f.; Scholten, Die alt. 
Zeugnisse, p. 108 f.; Creduer, Beitrage, i. p. 54 f. 

5. In the treatise on the Resurrection there are no arguments derived 
from Scripture. 

4 Eusebius, H. E., vy. Proem. © 165. Ή Wee 


THE EPISTLE OF VIENNE AND LYONS. 201 


to death. The Epistle has in great part been preserved 
by Eusebius,’ and critics generally agree in dating it 
about A.D. 177,? although it was most probably not 
written until the following year.® 

No writing of the New Testament is directly referred 
to in this Epistle,* but it is asserted that there are 
“unequivocal coincidences of language” ὅ with the Gospel 
of Luke, and others of its books. The passage which is 
referred to as showing knowledge of our Synoptic, is as 
follows. The letter speaks of a certain Vettius Epaga- 
thus whose life was so austere that, although a young 

an, “ he shared in the testimony (μαρτυρία) of the elder 
(πρεσβυτέρου) Zacharias. He had walked, of a truth, 
in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord 
blameless, and was eager in kind offices towards his 
neighbours ; he was very zealous for God and fervent 
in spirit.”® This is compared with the description of 
Zacharias and Elizabeth in Luke i. 6: “‘ And they were 
both righteous before God, walking in all the command- 


1 Eusebius, H. E., v. 1 f. 

3 Anger, Synops. Ἐν. Proleg., p. xxxii. ; Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and 
Doctr., iii. p. 255 ff. ; Hilgenfeld, Der Kanon, p. 10, p. 32; Lipsius, Chro- 
nologie ἃ. rém. Bischife, p. 185; Lardner, Works, ii. p. 149; Mosheim, 
Obsery. Sacr. et Hist., i. 3, 810; Neander, K. G., i. p. 190 f.; Routh, 
Relig. Sacra, i. p. 289 f., p. 826 f.; Scholten, Die iilt. Zeugnisse, p. 110 f.? 
Tillemont, Mém. Hist. Eccl., iii. art. 2, et note 1; Tischendorf, Wann 
wurden, τι. 5. w., p. 80 f., an. 1; Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 164, p. 
156; Westcott, on the Canon, p. 295. 

3 Baronius dates the death of Pothinus in A.D. 179; Valesius, ad Euseb. 
H. E., v. δὶ 

4 Westcott, on the Canon, p. 295; Lardner, Works, ii. p. 153; Donald-- 
son, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., iii. p. 285. 

® Westcott, On the Canon, p. 295. 

8... . συνεξισοῦσθαι τῇ τοῦ πρεσβυτέρου Ζαχαρίου μαρτυρίᾳ. πεπόρευτο 
γοῦν ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐντολαῖς καὶ δικαιώμασι τοῦ Κυρίου ἄμεμπτος, καὶ πάσῃ τῇ 
πρὸς τὸν πλησίον λειτουργίᾳ ἄοκνος, ζῆλον Θεοῦ πολὺν ἔχων, καὶ ζέων τῷ πνεύ- 


ματι, καλ. Huseb., H. E., γ. 1. 


202 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


ments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.” A little 
further on in the Epistle it is said of the same person : 
“And himself having the advocate (παράκλητον), the 
spirit (τὸ πνεῦμα), more abundantly than Zacharias,” &c.? 
which again is referred to Luke 1. 67, “ And his father 
Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied, 
saying,” το. 

No written source is indicated in the Epistle for the 
reference to Zacharias, and, therefore, it cannot in any 
case be ascribed to one particular Gospel to the ex- 
clusion of others no longer extant. Let us, however, 
examine the matter more closely. Tischendorf does not 
make use of this Epistle at all as evidence for the Scrip- 
tures of the New Testament. He does, however, refer to 
it and to these very allusions in it to Zacharias, as testi- 
mony to the existence and use of the Protevangelium 
Jacobi, a work, it will be remembered, whose origin he 
dates so far back as the first three decades of the second 
century. He points out that the first reference to the 
Protevangelium after Justin appears to be in this Epistle, 
as Hilgenfeld had already observed.® Tischendorf and 
Hilgenfeld, therefore, agree in affirming that the reference 
to Zacharias which we have quoted, indicates acquaint- 
ance with a different Gospel from our third Gospel, for 
it alludes to his martyrdom, which Luke does not 


1 he ‘ , > , ge. fe “ A , > , ΄ 
ἦσαν δὲ δίκαιοι ἀμφότεροι ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ, πορευόμενοι ἐν πάσαις ταῖς 
ἐντολαῖς καὶ δικαιώμασιν τοῦ κυρίου ἄμεμπτοι. Luke i. 6. 
3 ἔχων δὲ τὸν παράκλητον ἐν ἑαυτῷ, τὸ πνεῦμα πλεῖον τοῦ Zaxapiov. Lusch, 
Ἐν... Υ. ἃ. 
% Καὶ Ζαχαρίας ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ ἐπλήσθη mvetpatos ἁγίου καὶ ἐπροφήτευσεν 
λέγων, κιτιλ. Luke i. 67. 
* Wann wurden, u.s. w., p. 76 ff., 80, anm.1; ef. Evang. Apocr, Proleg., 
p. xii. f, 
5 Wann wurden, τι. 8. w., p. 80. anm. 1; Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. Justin’s 
κι Ι > > 3 
p. 154 f. 


THE EPISTLE OF VIENNE AND LYONS. 203 


mention. Hilgenfeld rightly maintains that the Prot- 
evangelium Jacobi in its present form is merely a version 
of an older work,’ which he conjectures to have been 
the Gospel according to Peter, or the Gnostic work Téva 
Μαρίας.) Both Tischendort and Hilgenfeld show that 
many of the Fathers* were either acquainted with the 
Protevangelium or the works on which it was based, and 
Tertullian refers to the martyrdom of Zacharias which it 
relates. The first Gospel alludes to the same event® in 
a manner which indicates a well-known history, but of 
which, with the exception of the account in the Protevan- 
gelium, we have no written narrative extant. There 
can be no doubt that the reference to Zacharias in 
Matthew, in the Protevangelium and in this Epistle of 
Vienne and Lyons, is not based upon Luke, in which 
there is no mention of his death, and there can be just 
as little doubt, and the Protevangelium is absolute 
evidence of the fact, that other works existed which 
included the Martyrdom of Zacharias, as well as the 
tradition of the birth of John the Baptist, which latter 
part we find reproduced in our third Synoptic Gospel. | 
Ewald, who asserts the mythical character of that history 
in Luke,® distinctly affirms that it is not a composition 
by the author of our third Synoptic, but is derived from 
a separate older work.’ 

The state of the case, then, is as follows: We find 
a coincidence in a few words in connection with Zacharias 


1 Die Evy. Justin’s, p. 154 f. 2 Ib., p. 160 f. 

% Tischendorf, Wann wurden, u. 85. w., p. 76 ff.; cf. Evang. Apoc. 
Proleg., p. xii. δὶ; Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. J., p. 154 ff. 

* Scorp. ady. Gnost., ὃ 8. ‘* Zacharias inter altare et dem trucidatur 
perennes cruoris sui maculas silicibus adsignans.” Cf. Protey. Jac., xxiv. 

5 Matt. xxiii. 35. 

5 Christus τι. 5. Zeit, p. 230 ff.; Gesch. des V. Israels, 1867, v. 

? Ewald, Die drei erst. Evy., p. 97 f.3 cf. 1. p. 177 ff. 


204 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


between the Epistle and our third Gospel, but so far 
from the Gospel being in any way indicated as their 
source, the words in question are, on the contrary, in 
association with a reference to events unknown to our 
Gospel, but which were indubitably chronicled elsewhere. 
It follows clearly, and few venture to doubt the fact, 
that the allusion in the Epistle is to a Gospel different 
from ours and not to our third Synoptic at all. 

There is another point which may just be mentioned. 
In Luke i. 67, it is said that Zacharias “was filled with 
the Holy Spirit” (ἐπλήσθη πνεύματος ayiov). Now 
the Epistle which is supposed to recognise the Gospel as 
Holy Scripture says of Vettius Epagathus, that he was 
“more full of the Spirit than Zacharias” (τὸ πνεῦμα 
πλεῖον τοῦ Ζαχαρίου). Such an unnecessary and in- 
vidious comparison would scarcely have been made had 
the writer known our Gospel and regarded it as inspired 
Scripture. 


PTOLEMZUS AND HERACLEON. 205 


CHAPTER X. 


PTOLEMAUS AND HERACLEON—CELSUS—-THE CANON OF 
MURATORI—RESULTS. 


WE have now reached the extreme limit of time within 
which we think it in any degree worth while to seek 
for evidence as to the date and authorship of the synoptic 
Gospels, and we might now proceed to the fourth Gospel ; 
but before doing so it may be well to examine one or 
two other witnesses whose support has been claimed by 
apologists, although our attention may be chiefly con- 
fined to an inquiry into the date of such testimony, upon 
which its value, even if real, mainly depends so far as we 
are concerned. ‘The first of these whom we must notice 
are the two Gnostic leaders, Ptolemzeus and Heracleon. 

Epiphanius has preserved a certain “ Epistle to Flora” 
ascribed to Ptolemzeus, in which, it is contended, there 
are “ several quotations from Matthew, and one from the 
first chapter of John.” What date must be assigned to 
this Epistle? In reply to those who date it about the 
end of the second century, Tischendorf produces the evi- 
dence for an earlier period to which he assigns it. He 
says: “ He (Ptolemzeus) appears in all the oldest sources 


1 Tischendorf, Wann wurden, τι. s.w., p. 46. Canon Westcott with 
greater caution says: ‘‘He quoted words of our Lord recorded by St. 


Matthew, the prologue of St. John’s Gospel, ἄς." On the Canon, 
Ῥ. 267, 


206 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


as one of the most important, most influential of the 
disciples of Valentinus. As the period at which the 
latter himself flourished falls about 140, do we say too 
much when we represent Ptolemzeus as working at the 
latest about 160? Irenzeus (in the 2nd Book) and 
Hippolytus name him together with Heracleon ; likewise 
pseudo-Tertullian (in the appendix to De Preseriptioni- 
bus Hereticorum) and ‘Philastrius make him appear 
immediately after Valentinus. Irenzeus wrote the first 
and second books of his great work most probably 
(héchst warscheinlich) before 180, and in both he occu- 
pies himself much with Ptolemzeus.”' Canon Westcott, 
beyond calling Ptolemzeus and Heracleon disciples of 
Valentinus, does not assign any date to either, and does 
not of course offer any further evidence on the point, 
although, in regard to Heracleon, he admits the ignorance 
in which we areas toall points of his history,” and states 
generally, in treating of him, that “ the exact chronology 
of the early heretics is very uncertain.” * 

Let us, however, examine the evidence upon which 
Tischendorf relies for the date he assigns to Ptolemeeus. 
He states in vague terms that Ptolemeus appears “ in all 
the oldest sources” (in allen den iiltesten Quellen) as one 
of the most important disciples of Valentinus. We shall 
presently see what these sources are, but must now follow 
the argument : “ As the date of Valentinus falls about 
140, do we say too much when we represent Ptolemzeus 
as working at the latest about 160?” It is evident that 
there is no evidence here but merely assumption, and the 
manner in which the period “ about 160” is begged, is a 
clear admission that there are no certaindata. The year 


1 Wann wurden, τι. s. w., p. 46 f. 
On the Canon, p. 263. 3 Jb., p. 264, note 2. 


PTOLEM/EUS AND HERACLEON. - 207 


might with equal propriety upon those grounds have 
been put ten years earlier or ten years later. The decep- 
tive and arbitrary character of the conclusion, however, 
will be more apparent when we examine the grounds 
upon which the relative dates 140 and 160 rest. Tisch- 
endorf here states that the time at which Valentinus 
flourished falls about A.p. 140, but the fact is that, as all 
critics are agreed,’ and as even Tischendorf himself else- 
where states,” Valentinus came out of Egypt to Rome in 
that year, when his public career practically commenced, 
and he continued to flourish for at least twenty years after. 
Tischendorf’s pretended moderation, therefore, consists 
in dating the period when Valentinus flourished from the 
very year of his first appearance, and in assigning the 
active career of Ptolemzeus to 160 when Valentinus was 
still alive and teaching. He might on the same prin- 
ciple be dated 180, and even in that case there could he 
no reason for ascribing the Epistle to Flora to so early a 
period of his career. Tischendorf never even pretends 
to state any ground upon which Ptolemzeus must be 
connected with any precise part of the public life of 
Valentinus, and still less for discriminating the period of 
the career of Ptolemzeus at which the Epistle may have 
been composed. It is obvious that a wide limit for date 
thus exists. 

After these general statements Tischendorf details the 
only evidence which is available. (1) “ Irenzeus (in the 
2nd Book) and Hippolytus name him together with 
Heracleon; likewise (2) pseudo-Tertullian (in the 


' See authorities, Vol. 11. p. 55, note 3, 

° Warn wurden, u. 5. w., p. 43. ‘* Valentinus, der um 140 aus 
ZEgypten nach Rom kam und darauf noch 20 Jahre gelebt haben mag.” 

3 Cf. Irenceus, Ady. Heer., iii. 4, § 3; Husebius, H. E., iv. 11. 


208 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


appendix to De Prescriptionibus Hareticorwm) and 
Philastrius make him appear immediately after Valenti- 
nus,” &e. We must first examine these two points a 
little more closely in order to ascertain the value of such 
statements. With regard to the first (1) of these points, 
we shall presently see that the mention of the name of 
Ptolemzeus along with that of Heracleon throws no light 
upon the matter from any point of view, inasmuch as 
Tischendorf has as little authority for the date he assigns 
to the latter, and is in as complete ignorance concerning 
him, as in the case of Ptolemeus. It is amusing, more- 
over, that Tischendorf employs the very same argument, 
which sounds well although it means nothing, inversely 
to establish the date of Heracleon. Here, he argues: 
“Treneeus and Hippolytus name him (Ptolemeeus) 
together with Heracleon ;”? there, he reasons: “ Irenzeus 
names Heracleon together with Ptolemezeus,”? ὅθ. As 
neither the date assigned to the one nor to the other can 
stand alone, he tries to get them into something like an 
upright position by propping the one ‘against the other, 
an expedient which, naturally, meets with little success. 
We shall in dealing with the case of Heracleon show how 
absurd is the argument from the mere order in which 
such names are mentioned by these writers ; meantime we 
may simply say that Irenzeus only once mentions the 
name of Heracleon in his works, and that the occasion 
on which he does so, and to which reference is here made, 
is merely an allusion to the Alons “ of Ptolemezeus himself, 
and of Heracleon, and all the rest who hold these views.” 
This phrase might have been used, exactly as it stands, with 
1 Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 47. 2 Ib., p. 48. 


5 Ipsius Ptolemei et Heracleonis, et reliquis cmnibus qui cadem opi- 
nantur. Ady. Her., ii. 4, ὃ 1. 


PTOLEMAUS AND HERACLEON. 209 


perfect propriety even if Ptolemzeus and Heracleon had 
been separated by a century. The only point which can 
be deduced from this mere coupling of names is that, in 
using the present tense, Irenseus is speaking of his own 
contemporaries. We may make the same remark regard- 
ing Hippolytus, for, if his mention of Ptolemzeus and 
Heracleon has any weight at all, it is to prove that they 
were flourishing in his time: ‘‘ Those who are of Italy, 
of whom is Heracleon and Ptolemzeus, say . . .”! &c, 
We shall have to go further into this point presently. 
As to (2) pseudo-Tertullian and Philastrius we need only 
say that even if the fact of the names of the two 
Gnostics being coupled together could prove anything 
in regard to the date, the repetition by these writers 
could have no importance for us, their works being 
altogether based on those of Irenzeus ‘and Hippolytus,? 
and scarcely, if at all, conveying independent informa- 
tion. We have merely indicated the weakness of 
these arguments in passing, but shall again take them 
up further on. | 

The next and final consideration advanced by Tisch- 
endorf is the only one which merits serious atten- 
tion. “Irenzeus wrote the first and second book of his 
great work most probably before 180, and in both he 
occupies himself much with Ptolemzeus.” Before pro- 
ceeding to examine the accuracy of this statement 
regarding the time at which Ireneeus wrote, we may ask 
what conclusion would be involved if Ivenzeus really did 


1 Of μὲν ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰταλίας, ὧν ἐστὶν Ἡρακλέων καὶ Πτολεμαῖος. . . « 
φασι. Ref. Omn. Hor., vi. 35. 

® Cf. Lipsius, Zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanius, 1865. 

3. Indeed the direct and ayowed dependence of Hippolytus himself upon 
the work of Irenzeus depriyes the Philosopumena, in many parts, of all 
separate authority. 

VoL. It P 


210 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


compose the two books in A.D, 180 in which he mentions 
our Gnostics in the present tense? Nothing more than 
the simple fact that Ptolemzeus and Heracleon were 
promulgating their doctrines at that time. There is not 
a single word to show that they did not continue to 
flourish long after; and as to the “ Epistle to Flora” 
Trenzeus knows nothing of it, nor has any attempt been 
made to assign it to an early part of the Gnosties’ career. 
Tischendorf, in fact, does not produce a single passage 
nor the slightest argument to show that Irenzeus treats 
our two Gnostics as men of the past, or otherwise than 
as heretics then actively disseminating their heterodox 
opinions, and, even taken literally, the argument of 
Tischendorf would simply go to prove that about A.p. 180 
Irenzeus wrote part of a work in which he attacks 
Ptolemzeus and mentions Heracleon. 

When did Irenzeus, however, really write his work 
against Heresies? Although our sources of reliable 
information regarding him are exceedingly limited, we 
are not without materials for forming a judgment on the 
point. Irenzeus was born about Α.Ὁ. 140, and is generally 
supposed to have died at the opening of the third century 
(A.D. 202).1 We know that he was deputed by the 
Church of Lyons to bear to Eleutherus, then Bishop of 
Rome, the Epistle of that Christian community describing 
their sufferings during the persecution commenced against 
them in the seventeenth year of the reign of Marcus 
Aurelius Antoninus (7th March, 177—178).? It is very 
improbable that this journey was undertaken, in any 
case, before the spring of A.D. 178 at the earliest, and, 
- a ΡΥ Dio alt. Zeugnisse, p. 118 f.; Tischendorf, Wann wurden, 


ἃ. 5. W., p» 11, 12; Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 24. 
2 Eusebius, H. E., vy. 1; Preef. §1, 3, 4. 





PTOLEMAUS AND HERACLEON. 211 


indeed, in accordance with the given data, the persecu- 
tion itself may not have commenced earlier than the 
beginning of that year, so that his journey need not have 
been undertaken before the close of 178 or the spring of 
179, to which epoch other circumstances might lead us.’ 
There is reason to believe that he remained some time in 
Rome. Baronius states that Irenzeus was not appointed 
Bishop of Lyons till A.D. 180, for he says that the see 
remained vacant for that period after the death of 
Pothinus in consequence of the persecution. Now certain 
expressions in his work show that Ivenzeus certainly did 
not write it until he became Bishop.? It is not known 
how long Ivenzeus remained in Rome, but there is every 
probability that he must have made a somewhat pro- 
tracted stay, for the purpose of making himself acquainted 
with the various tenets of Gnostic and other heretics 
then being actively taught, and the preface to the first 
Book refers to the pains he took, He wrote his work in 
Gaul, however, after his return from this visit to Rome. 
This is apparent from what he himself states in the 
Preface to the first Book: “I have thought it neces- 
sary,” he says, “after having read the Memoirs (ὑπομ- 
νήμασι) of the disciples of Valentinus as they call them- 
selves, and hawing by personal intercourse with some of 
them apprehended their opinions, to unfold to thee,”’? &e. 
A. little further on he claims from the friend to whom he 
addresses his work indulgence for any defects of style 
on the score of his being resident amongst the Kelte.* 


1 Baronius (Ann. Eccles.) sets the death of Pothinus in A.D. 179. 
2 Cf. Adv. Heer., y. Preef.; Massuet, Dissert. in Iren., ii. art. 11. § 49; 
Lardner, Works, ii. p. 157. 
3 Ady. Heer., i. Preef. § 2, See the passage quoted, vol. ii. p. 60. 
4 Οὐκ ἐπιζητήσεις δὲ παρ᾽ ἡμῶν τῶν ἐν Κελτοῖς διατριβόντων, κιτιλ. Ady. 
Heer., i. Pref. § 3. 
PrP 2 


212 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


Irenzeus no doubt during his stay in Rome came in 
contact with.the school of Ptolemzeus and Heracleon, if 
not with the Gnostic leaders themselves, and shocked as 
he describes himself as being at the doctrines which they 
insidiously taught, he undertook, on his return to Lyons, 
to explain them that others might be exhorted to 
avoid such an “ abyss of madness and blasphemy against 
Christ.”? Irenzeus gives us other materials for assign- 
ing a date to his work. In the third Book he enumerates 
the bishops who had filled the Episcopal Chair of Rome, 
and the last whom he names is Eleutherus (a.p. 177— 
190), who, he says, “now in the twelfth place from the 
apostles, holds the inheritance of the episcopate.”? There 
is, however, another clue which, taken along with this, 
leads us to a close approximation to the actual date. In 
the same Book, Irenzeus mentions Theodotion’s version 
of the Old Testament: “But not as some say,” he 
writes, “who now (νῦν) presume to interpret the 
Scripture: ‘ Behold a young woman shall conceive, and 
bring forth a son,’ as Theodotion, the Ephesian, has 
interpreted, and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish prose- 
lytes.” Now we are informed by Epiphanius that 
Theodotion published his translation during the reign 
of the Emperor Commodus* (a.p. 180—192). The 
Chronicon Paschale adds that it was during the Consul- 
ship of Marcellus, or as Massuet*® proposes to read 
Marullus, who, jointly with #lianus, assumed office 
Α.Ὁ. 184. These dates decidedly agree with the passage 


1 Adv. Heer., i. Preef. § 2. 

2 Ady. Heer., ili. 3,§ 3; Eusebius, H. E., v. 6. 

5 °AAN’ οὐχ ὡς ἔνιοί φασὶ τῶν νῦν τολμώντων μεθερμηνεύειν τὴν γραφὴν . . 
ὡς Θεοδοτίων ἡρμήνευσεν 6 ᾽᾿Ἐφέσιος, καὶ ᾿Ακύλας ὁ Ποντικὸς, κατιλ. Ady. Heer., 
iii. 21,§1. Huseb., H. E., v. 8. 

' 4 De Ponderib. et Mens., 17. 
> Dissert. in Iren., ii. art. 11. xcyii. § 47. 


PTOLEMAUS AND HERACLEON. 213 


of Irenzeus and with the other data, all of which lead 
us to about the same period within the episcopate of 
Eleutherus (7 ὁ. 190)} We have here, therefore, a 
reliable clue to the date at which Irenseus wrote. It 
must be remembered that at that period the multiplica- 
tion and dissemination of books was a very slow process. 
A work published about 184 or 185 could scarcely have 
come into the possession of Irenzeus in Gaul till some 
_ years later, and we are, therefore, brought towards the 
end of the episcopate of Eleutherus as the earliest date 
at which the first three books of his work against 
Heresies can well have been written, and the rest must 
be assigned to a later period under the episcopate of 
Victor (7 198—199).? 

At this point we must pause and turn to the evidente 
which Tischendorf offers regarding the date to be 
assigned to Heracleon.? As in the case of Ptolemzeus, 
we shall give it entire and then examine it in detail. 
To the all-important question: “How old is Heracleon?” 
Tischendorf replies: “Trenzeus names Heracleon, together 
with Ptolemzeus II. 4, § 1, ina way which makes them 


1 Of. Credner, Beitiiige, ii. p. 253 ff. ; De Wetle, Hinl. A. T., 1852, p. 
61 ff., p. 62, anm. ἃ. ; Lardner, ‘‘He also speaks of the translation of 
Theodotion, which is generally allowed to have been published in the 
reign of Commodus.”” Works, ii. p. 156 f. ; Masswet, Dissert. in Iren., ii. 
art. li. xevii. ὃ 47. 

2 Massuet, Dissert. in Iren., ii. art. 11. xevii. (§ 47), xcix. (δ 50); Volk- 
mar, Der Ursprung, p. 24; of. De Wette, Einl. A. T., p. 62, anm. ἃ, 
(‘‘ Er schrieb zw., 177—192”) ; cf. Credner, Beitiage, ii. p. 255. Jerome 
says: ‘* Hoc ille sétipalt ante annos circiter trecentos.”’ Epist. ad Theod., 
§ 53, al. 29. If instead of ‘‘ trecentos,” which is an evident slip of the 
pen, we read ‘‘ ducentos,” his testimony as to the date exactly agrees. 

3 Canon Westcott adds no separate testimony. He admits that: ‘‘ The 
history of Heracleon, the great Valentinian Commentator, is full of un- 
certainty. Nothing is known of his country or parentage.” On the 
Canon, p. 263, and in a note : ‘‘ The exact chronology of the early herctics 
is very uncertain,” p. 264, note 2, 


214 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


appear as well-known representatives of the Valentinian 
school. This interpretation of his words is all the more 
correct because he never again mentions Heracleon. 
Clement, in the 4th. Book of his Stromata, written shortly 
after the death of Commodus (193), recalls an explana- 
tion by Heracleon of Luke xii. 8, when he calls him the 
most noted man of the Valentinian school (ὃ τῆς 
Οὐαλεντίνου σχολῆς δοκιμώτατος is Clement’s expression). 
Origen, at the beginning of his quotation from Heracleon, 
says that he was held to be a friend of Valentinus (ror 
Οὐαλεντίνον λεγόμενον εἶναι γνώριμον “Hpakdéwva). 
Hippolytus mentions him, for instance, in the following 
way: (vi. 29); ‘Valentinus, and Heracleon, and Ptole- 
meus, and the whole school of these, disciples of 
Pythagoras and Plato. . . . ’ Epiphanius says 
(Heer. 41): ‘Cerdo (the same who, according to 
Trenzeus IIT. 4, ὃ 3, was in Rome under Bishop Hyginus 
with Valentinus) follows these (the Ophites, Kainites, 
Sethiani), and Heracleon.’ After all this Heracleon 
certainly cannot be placed later than 150 to 160. The 
expression which Origen uses regarding his relation 
to Valentinus must, according to linguistic usage, be 
understood of a personal relation.”! 

We have already pointed out that the fact that the 
names of Ptolemzeus and Heracleon are thus coupled 
together affords no clue in itself to the date of either, 
and their being mentioned as leading representatives of 
the school of Valentinus does not in any way involve 
the inference that they were not contemporaries of 
Trenzeus, living and working at the time he wrote. The 
way in which Irenzeus mentions them in this the only 
passage throughout his whole work in which he names 


1 Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 48 f. 


PTOLEMAUS AND HERACLEON. 215 


Heracleon, and to which Tischendorf ‘pointedly refers, 
is as follows: “ But if it was not produced, but was 
generated by itself, then that which is vacuum is both 
like, and brother to, and of the same honour with, that 
Father who was proclaimed by Valentinus ; but it is 
really more ancient, and existent much’ before, and more 
exalted than the rest of the Alons of Ptolemzeus him- 
self, and of Heracleon, and all the rest who hold these 
views.”’' We fail to recognize anything special, here, of 
the kind inferred by Tischendorf, in the way in which 
mention is made of the two later Gnostics. If anything 
be clear, on the contrary; it is that a distinction is drawn 
between Valentinus and Ptolemzeus and Heracleon, and 
that Irenzeus points out inconsistencies between the 
doctrines of the founder and those of his later followers. 
It is quite irrelevant to insist merely, as Tischendorf 
does, that Irenzeus and subsequent writers represent 
Ptolemzeus and Heracleon and other Gnosties of his time 
as of “the school” of Valentinus. The question simply 
is, Whether in doing so they at all imply that these men 
were not contemporaries of Irenzeus, or necessarily 
assign their period of independent activity to the lifetime 
of Valentinus, as Tischendorf appears to argue? Most 
certainly they do not, and Tischendorf does not attempt 
to offer any evidence that they do so. We may perceive 
how utterly worthless such a fact is for the purpose of 
affixing an early date by merely considering the quota- 
tion which Tischendorf himself makes from Hippolytus : 
“ Valentinus and Heracleon and Ptolemeeus, and the 

1 Si autem non prolatum est, sed a se generatum est; et simile est, et 
fraternum, et.ejusdem honoris id quod est vacuum, ei Patri qui preedictus 
est a Valentino: antiquius autem et multo ante exsistens, et honorificen- 


tius reliquis Aonibus ipsius Ptolemsei et Heracleonis, et reliquis omnibus 
qui eadem opinantur. Ady. Heer., ii. 4, § 1. 


216 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


whole school of these, disciples of Pythagoras and 
Plato. . . . ”! Ifthe statement that men are of a 
certain sehool involve the supposition of coincidence of 
time, the three Gnostic leaders must be considered con- 
temporaries of Pythagoras or Plato, whose disciples they 
are said to be. Again, if the order in which names are 
mentioned, as Tischendorf contends by inference through- 
out his whole argument, is to involve strict similar 
sequence of date, the principle applied to the whole 
of the early writers would lead to the most ridiculous 
confusion. Tischendorf quotes Epiphanius: “ Cerdo 
follows these (the Ophites, Kainites, Sethiani), and Hera- 
cleon.” Why he does so it is difficult to understand, 
unless it be to give the appearance of multiplying testi- 
monies, for two sentences further on he is obliged to 
admit: “Epiphanius has certainly made a mistake, as in 
such things not unfrequently happens to him, when 
he makes Cerdo, who, however, is to be placed about 140, . 
follow Heracleon.”? This kind of mistake is, indeed, 
common to all the writers quoted, and when it is remem- 
bered that such an error is committed where a distinct 
and deliberate affirmation of the point is concerned, it 
will easily be conceived how little dependence is to be 
placed on the mere mention of names in the course 
of argument. We find Irenzeus saying that “neither 
Valentinus, nor Marcion, nor Saturninus, nor Basilides ” 
possesses certain knowledge,’ and elsewhere : “ of such an 
one as Valentinus, or Ptolemzeus, or Basilides.”* To base 


1 Οὐαλεντῖνος τοίνυν καὶ Ηρακλέων καὶ Πτολεμαῖος καὶ πᾶσα ἡ τούτων σχολή, 
οἱ Πυθαγόρου καὶ ἸΤλάτωνος μαθηταί, x.7.r. Ref. Omn. Heer., vi. 29. ἐς 

3 Wann wurden, u. 5. w., p. 49. 

We do not here enter into the discussion of the nature of this error. 
(See Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 129 f.; Scholten, Die Alt. Zeugnisse, 
p- 91; Riggenbach, Die Zeugn., f. d. Ey, Johan., 1866, p. 79.) 

3 Ady. Heer., ii. 28, ξ 6. - 4. Tb,, Hi. 28, $9. 


PTOLEMMUS AND HERACLEON. 217 


an argument as to date on the order in which names 
appear in such writers is preposterous. 

Tischendorf draws an inference from the, statement 
that Heracleon was said to bea γνώριμος of Valentinus, 
that Origen declares him to have been his friend, hold- 
ing personal intercourse with him. Origen, however, 
evidently knew nothing individually on the point, and 
speaks upon mere hearsay, guardedly using the expres- 
sion “said to be” (λεγόμενον εἶναι γνώριμον). But, 
according to the later and patristic use of the word, 
γνώριμος meant nothing more than a “ disciple,” and it 
cannot here be necessarily interpreted into a “ contem- ἡ 
porary.”! Under no circumstances could such a phrase, 
avowedly limited to hearsay, have any weight. The 
loose manner in which the Fathers repeat each other, 
even in serious matters, is too well known to every one 
acquainted with their writings to require any remark. 
Their inaccuracy keeps pace with their want of critical 
judgment. We have seen one of the mistakes of 
Epiphanius, admitted by Tischendorf to be only too 
common with him, which illustrates how little such 
data are to be relied on. We may point out another of 
the same kind committed by him in common with Hip- 
polytus, pseudo-Tertullian and Philastrius. Mistaking a 
passage of Irenzeus,? regarding the sacred Tetrad (Kol- 
Arbas) of the Valentinian Gnosis, Hippolytus supposes 
Irenzeus to refer to another heretic leader. He at 
once treats the Tetrad as such a leader named “ Colar- 
basus,” and after dealing (vi. 4) with the doctrines of 
Secundus, and Ptolemzeus, and Heracleon, he proposes, 
§ 5, to show “ what are the opinions held by Marcus and 


1 Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 127; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 89 ; 
cf. Lipsius, Zeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1867, p. 82; Stephanus, Thesaurus 
Ling. Gr. ; Suidas, Lexicon, in yoce, 2 Ady. Heer., i. 14. 


218 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


Colarbasus.”! At the end of the same book he declares 
that Irenzeus, to whom he states that he is indebted for 
a knowledge of their mventions, has completely refuted 
the opinions of these heretics, and he proceeds to treat 
of Basilides, considermg that it has been. sufficiently 
demonstrated “‘ whose disciples are Marcus and Colar- 
basus, the successors of the school of Valentinus.”? At 
an earlier part of the work he had spoken in a more 
independent way in reference to certain who had _ pro- 
mulgated great heresies: “Of these,” he says, “one is 
Colarbasus, who endeavours to explain religion by 
᾿ measures and numbers.”* The same mistake is committed 
by pseudo-Tertullian,* and Philastrius,® each of whom 
devotes a chapter to this supposed heretic. Epiphanius, 
as might have been expected, fell into the same error, 
and he proceeds elaborately to refute the heresy of the 
Colarbasians, “which is Heresy XV.” He states that 
Colarbasus follows Marcus and Ptolemzeus,® and after 
discussing the opinions of this mythical heretic he 
devotes the next chapter, “which is Heresy XVI.,” to 
the . Heracleonites, commencing it with the information 
that: “A certain Heracleon follows after Colarbasus.”7 
This absurd mistake® shows how little these writers 


1Tiva τὰ Μάρκῳ καὶ Κολαρβάσῳ νομισθέντα. Ref. Omn. Heer,, vi. ὃ 5. 
There can be no doubt that a chapter on Colarbasus is omitted from the 
MS. of Hippolytus which we possess. Cf. Bunsen, Hippolytus u. s. 
aM 1852, p. 54 f. 

. τίνων εἶεν μαθηταὶ Μάρκος τε καὶ Κολάρβασος, οἱ τῆς Οὐαλεντίνου 
τοὶ διάδοχοι γενόμενοι, καιτιλ. Ref. Omn. Heer., vi. ὃ 55. 

3 Ὧν εἷς μὲν Κολάρβασος, ὃς διὰ μέτρων καὶ ἀριθμῶν ἐκτίθεσθαι θεοσέβειαν 
ἐπιχειρεῖ. Ref. Omn. Her., iv. § 18. 

4 Heer., 15. Pol Des 40% 

6 Jb, xxxy. δ 1, δ. 258. 

7 Ἡρακλέων τις τοῦτον τὸν Κολόρβασον διαδέχεται, κιτλ. Heer., xxxyi. 
§ 1, p. 262. 

8 Volkmar, Die Colarbasus-gnosis in Niedner’s Zeitschr. hist. Theol., 
1855 ; Der Ursprung, p. 128f.; Baur, K. G. ἃ. drei erst. Jahrh., p. 204; 


PTOLEMAUS AND HERACLEON. 219 


knew of the Gnostics of whom they wrote, and how the 
one ignorantly follows the other. 

The order, moreover, in which theyset the heretic leaders 
varies considerably. It will be sufficient for us merely 
to remark here that while pseudo-Tertullian * and Philas- 
trius? adopt the following order after the Valentinians : 
Ptolemzeus, Secundus, Heracleon, Marcus, and Colar- 
basus, Epiphanius* places them : Secundus, Ptolemzeus, 
Marcosians, Colarbasus, and Heracleon ; and Hippolytus* 
again: Secundus, Ptolemzeus, Heracleon, Marcus, and 
Colarbasus. The vagueness of Irenzeus had left some 
latitude here, and his followers were uncertain. The 
somewhat singular fact that Ireneeus only once mentions 
Heracleon whilst he so constantly refers to Ptolemzeus, 
taken in connection with this order, in which Heracleon 
is always placed after Ptolemzeus,° and by Epiphanius 
after Marcus, may be reasonably explained by the fact 
that whilst Ptolemzeus had already gained considerable 
notoriety when Irenzeus wrote, Heracleon may only have 
begun to come into notice. Since Tischendorf lays so 
much stress upon pseudo-Tertullian and  Philastrius 
making Ptolemzeus appear immediately after Valentinus, 
this explanation is after his own principle. : 

We have already pointed out that there is not a single 
passage in Irenzeus, or any other early writer, assigning 
Ptolemzeus and Heracleon to a period anterior to the 
time when Ivenzeus undertook to refute their opinions. 
Indeed, Tischendorf has not attempted to show that 


anm. 1; Lipsius, Der Gnosticismus, in Ersch. u. Grubers Real. Encykl. ; 
Zur Quellenkritik des Epiph., p. 166 f., 168 f.; Scholten, Die alt. Zeug- 
nisse, p. 91. 

1 Heer., 13 ff. 2 Ib., 39 ff. 3 Jb., $2 ff. 

4 Ref. Omn. Heor., vi. ὃ 3, 4, 5. 

5. Tertullian also makes Heracleon follow Ptolemeeus. Ady. Val., 4. 


220 ᾿ς SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


they do, and he has merely, on the strength of the 
general expression that these Gnosties were of the school 
of Valentinus, boldly assigned to them an early date. 
Now, as we have stated, he himself admits that Valen- 
tinus only came from Egypt to Rome in a.p. 140, and 
continued teaching till 160,) and these dates are most 
clearly given by Irenzeus himself.2 Why then should 
Ptolemzeus and Heracleon, to take an extreme case, not 
have known Valentinus in their youth, and yet have 
flourished chiefly during the last two decades of the 
second century? Irenzeus himself may be cited as a 
parallel case, which Tischendorf at least cannot gainsay. 
He is never tired of telling us that Irenzus was the 
disciple of Polycarp,? whose martyrdom he sets about 
A.D. 165, and he considers that the intercourse of 
Irenzeus with the aged Father must properly be put 
about A.D. 150,* yet he himself dates the death of 
Trenzeus, A.D. 202,5 and nothing is more certain than 
that the period of his greatest activity and influence 
falls precisely in the last twenty years of the second 
century. Upon his own data, therefore, that Valentinus 
taught for twenty years after his first appearance in 
Rome in ‘A.D. 140—and there is no ground whatever for 
asserting that he did not teach for even a much longer 
period—Ptolemzus and Heracleon might well have 
personally sat at the feet of Valentinus in their 
youth, as Jrenzeus is said to have done about the 
very same period at those of Polycarp, and yet, like 
him, have flourished chiefly towards the end of the 


century. 


1 Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 43. 

? Ady. Heer., iii. 4, § 3; Huseb., H. E., iv. 11. 

3 Wann wurden, u.s. w., p. 25, p. 11. 

4 1b., p. 12. ee foe αν 1: 


PTOLEMAUS AND HERACLEON. 221 


Although there is not the slightest ground for assert- 
ing that Ptolemzeus and Heracleon were not contem- 
poraries with [reneeus, flourishing like him towards the 
end of the second century, there are, on the other hand, 
many circumstances which altogether establish that con- 
clusion. We have already shown, in treating of Valen- 
tinus,' that Irenzeus principally directs his work against 
the followers of Valentinus living at the time he wrote, 
and notably of Ptolemzeus and his school? In the 
preface to the first book, after stating that he writes 
after personal intercourse with some of the disciples of 
Valentinus,*? he more definitely states his purpose: “‘ We 
will, then, to the best of our ability, clearly and concisely 
set forth the opinions of those who are now (νῦν) teach- 
ing heresy, I speak particularly of those round Ptole- 
meus (τῶν περὶ Πτολεμαῖον) whose system is an offshoot 
from the school of Valentinus.” * Nothing could be more 
explicit. Irenzeus in this passage distinctly represents 
Ptolemzeus as teaching at the time he is writing, and 
this statement alone is decisive, more especially as there 
is not a single known fact which is either directly or 
indirectly opposed to it. 

Tischendorf lays much stress on the evidence of 
Hippolytus in coupling together the names of Ptolemeeus 
and Heracleon with that of Valentinus; similar testi- 
mony of the same writer, fully confirming the above 
statement of Irenzeus, will, therefore, have the greater 
force. Hippolytus says that the Valentinians differed 
materially among themselves regarding certain points 
which led to divisions, one party being called the 

1 Vol. ii. p. 60 ff. 

* Canon Westcott admits this. On the Canon, p. 266 f. 


3 See passage quoted, vol. ii. p. 60. 
+ Ady. Heer., i. Preef. § 2. See Greek quoted, vol. ii. p. 60, note 1. 


22 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


Oriental and the other the Italian. “They of the 
Italian party, of whom is Heracleon and Ptolemzus, 
say, &. . +. 4 They, however, who are of the 
Oriental party, of whom is Axionicus and Bardesanes, 
maintain,” &c.1 Now, Ptolemeus and Heracleon are 
here quite clearly represented as being contemporary 
with Axionicus and Bardesanes, and without discussing 
whether Hippolytus does not, in continuation, describe 
them as all living at the time he wrote,’ there can be 
no doubt that some of them were, and that this evidence 
confirms again the statement of Iveneus. Hippolytus, 
in a subsequent part of his work, states that a certain 
Prepon, a Marcionite, has introduced something new, and 
“now in our own time (ἐν τοῖς καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς χρόνοις νῦν) 
has written a work regarding the heresy in reply to 
Bardesanes.”3 The researches of Hilgenfeld have proved 
that Bardesanes lived at least over the reign of Helioga- 
balus (218—222), and the statement of Hippolytus is 
thus confirmed.* Axionicus again was still flourishing 
when Tertullian wrote his work against the Valentinians 


1 Οἱ μὲν ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας, Sv ἐστὶν ‘Hpaxdéwv καὶ Ἰπτολεμαῖος. . . φασι... 
* * * * * 

Οἱ δ᾽ αὖ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀνατολῆς λέγουσιν, ὧν ἐστὶν ᾿Αξιόνικος καὶ Βαρδησάνης, k.T.A. 

Ref. Omn. Heer., vi. 35. 

5 Tischendorf did not refer to these passages at all originally, and only 
does so in the second and subsequent editions of this book, in reply to 
Volkmar and others in the Vorwort (p. ix. f.), and in a note (p. 49, 
note 2). Volkmar argues from the opening of the next chapter (36), 
Ταῦτα οὖν ἐκεῖνοι ζητείτωσαν κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς" (Let these heretics, therefore, 
discuss these points amongst themselves), that they are represented 
as contemporaries of Hippolytus himself at the time he wrote (A.D. 225— 
235), Der Ursprung, p. 28, p. 180 f. It is not our purpose to pursue this 
discussion, but whatever may be the conclusion as regards the extreme 
deduction of Volkmar, there can be no doubt that the passage proves at 
least the date which was assigned to them against Tischendorf. 

3 Ref. Omn. Heer., vii. 31. 

4 Hilgenfeld, Bardesanes, 1864, p. 11 ff.; Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 
131, p. 23; Lipsius, Zeitechr. wiss. Theol., 1867, p. 80 f.; Riggenbach, 


PTOLEMAUS AND HERACLEON. 223 


(201—226). ‘Tertullian says: “Axionicus of Antioch 
alone to the present day (ad hodiernum) respects the 
memory of Valentinus, by keeping fully the rules of his 
system.” Although on the whole they may be con- 
sidered to have flourished somewhat earlier, Ptolemzeus 
and Heracleon are thus shown to have been for a time at 
least contemporaries of Axionicus and Bardesanes.? 

Moreover, it is evident that the doctrines of Ptolemeeus 
and Heracleon represent a much later form of Gnosticism 
than that of Valentinus. It is generally admitted that 
Ptolemeeus reduced. the system of Valentinus to con- 
sistency,* and the inconsistencies which existed between 
the views of the Master and these later followers, and 
which indicate a much more advanced stage of develop- 
ment, are constantly pointed out by Irenzeus and the 
Fathers who wrote in refutation of heresy. Origen also 
represents Heracleon as amongst those who held opinions 
sanctioned by the Church,* and both he and Ptolemzeus 
must indubitably be classed amongst the latest Gnostics.5 
It is clear, therefore, that Ptolemzeus.and Heracleon were 
contemporaries of Irenzeus® at the time he composed 
his work against Heresies (1S5—195), both, and especially 
Die Zeugnisse f. d. Ey. Johannis, 1866, p. 78 f.; Scholten, Die alt. Zeug- 
nisse, p. 90. 

1 Ady. Val., 4; Hilgenfeld, Bardesanes, p. 15; Volkmar, Der Ursprung, 
p. 130 f.; Lipsius, Zeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1867, p. 81. 

3 Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 23 ἢν, p. 130 f.; Lipsius, Zeitschr. wiss. 
Theol., 1867, p. 82; Scholten, Die alt. Zougnisse, p. 90. 

3 Westcott, On the Canon, p. 276. 

Ὁ In Joh., T. xvi. p. 236 f.; Grabe, Spicil. Patr., ii. p. 105. 

® Hilgenfeld, Die HEyangelien, p. 346; Scholten, Die iilt. Zeugnisse, 
p- 89 ff.; Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 127 ff.; Lipsius, Zeitschr. wiss. 
Theol., 1867, p. 82; Riggenbach, Die Zeugn. f. ἃ. Ey. Johann., p.-78. 

5 Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 22 ff., p. 126 ff. ; Scholten, Die alt. Zeug- 
nisse, p. 88 ff. ; Lipsius, Zeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1867, p. 81, 83; Céllerier, 


Kssai d’Intro. N. T., p. 27 f.; Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii. p. 391, note 1; 
Riggenbach, Die Zeugn. f. ἃ. Ey, Johann., p. 78. 


224 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION, 


the latter, flourishing and writing towards the end of the 
second century.? 

We mentioned, in first speaking of these Gnostics, that 
Epiphanius has preserved an Epistle, attributed to Ptole- 
mzeus, which is addressed to Flora, one of his disciples.? 
This Epistle is neither mentioned by Irenzeus nor by any 
other writer before Epiphanius. There is nothing in the 
Epistle itself to show that it was really written by 
Ptolemzeus himself. Assuming it to be by him, how- 
ever, the Epistle was in all probability written towards 
the end of the second century, and it does not, therefore, 
come within the scope of our inquiry. We may, how- 
ever, briefly notice the supposed references to our Gospels 
which it contains. The writer of the Epistle, without 
any indication whatever of a written source from which 
he derived them, quotes sayings of Jesus for which 
parallels are found in our first Gospel. These sayings 
are introduced by such expressions as “he said,” “ our 
Saviour declared,’ but never as quotations from any 
Scripture. Now, in affirming that they are taken from 
the Gospel according to Matthew, Apologists exhibit 
their usual arbitrary haste, for we must clearly and 
decidedly state that there is not a single one of the pas- 
sages Which does not present decided variations from the 
parallel passages in our first Synoptic. We subjoin for 
comparison in parallel columns the passages from the 


Epistle and Gospel :— 


EPISTLE. MATT, XII. 25. 

Οἰκία yap ἢ πόλις μερισθεῖσα ἐφ᾽ εν ες πᾶσα πόλις ἢ οἰκία μερισθεῖσα 
ἑαυτὴν ὅτι μὴ δύναται στῆναι, ὁ σωτὴρ | καθ᾽ ἑαυτῆς οὐ σταθήσεται. 
ἡμῶν ἀπεφήνατο.) . . .. : 

1 Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 22 ff., 126 ff. ; Scholten, Die alt. Zeug- 
nisse, p. 88 ff.; Ebrard, Evang. Gesch., p. 874, § 142; Lipsius, Zeitschr. 
wiss. Theol., 1867, p. 81 ff. 

2 Epiphanius, Heer., xxxill. 3—7, ¢ toe WNiay: δ Ὁ 


PTOLEMAMUS AND HERACLEON, 


EPISTLE. 

ἔφη αὐτοῖς ὅτι, Μωῦσῆς πρὸς τὴν 
σκληροκαρδίαν ὑμῶν ἐπέτρεψε τὸ ἀπο- 
λύειν τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ" ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς γὰρ 
Θεὸς γὰρ, φησὶ, 
συνέζευξε ταύτην τὴν συζυγίαν, καὶ ὃ 
συνέζευξεν ὁ κύριος, ἄνθρωπος μὴ 
χωριζέτω, ἔφη." 


οὐ γέγονεν οὕτως. 


Ὃ γὰρ θεὸς, φησὶν, εἶπε, τίμα τὸν 
πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα σου, ἵνα εὖ 
σοι γένηται. ὑμεῖς δὲ, φησὶν, εἰρήκατε, 
τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις λέγων, δῶρον τῷ θεῷ 
ὃ ἐὰν ὠφεληθῆς ἐξ ἐμοῦ, 


ν ΚΞ , ‘ , a a \ 
καὶ ἠκυρώσατε τὸν νόμον τοῦ θεοῦ, διὰ 
τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ὑμῶν. 
Τοῦτο δὲ Ἡσαΐας ἐξεφώνησεν εἰπών, 
Ὁ λαὸς οὗτος, KTS... 


τὸ γὰρ, ᾿Οφθαλμὸν ἀντὶ 
ὀφθαλμοῦ, καὶ ὀδόντα ἀντὶ ὀδόντος... 


a. τῷ ‘ λέ φΦ ὦ δι a ὅλ, Ϊ 

ἐγὼ γὰρ λέγω ὑμῖν μὴ ἀντιστῆναι ὅλως 
~ ~ > A PA , «ε , 

τῷ πονηρῷ ἀλλὰ ἐάν tis σε pation | 


στρέψον αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν ἄλλην σιαγόνα." 


225 


Marr. ΧΙΧ. 8, and 6, 
λέγει αὐτοῖς Ὅτι Μωῦσῆς πρὸς τὴν 
σκληροκαρδίαν ὑμῶν ἐπέτρεψεν ὑμῖν 
ἀπολῦσαι τὰς γυναῖκας ὑμῶν" ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς 
δὲ οὐ γέγονεν οὕτως. 6... 
οὖν ὁ θεὸς συνέζευξεν, ἄνθρωπος μὴ 
χωριζέτω. ι 


oe ὁ ὃ 


Marr. xv. 4--8. 

Ὃ γὰρ θεὸς ἐνετείλατο, λέγων: Τίμα 
τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὴν μητέρα, καὶ, ‘O κακο- 
λογῶν, κιτιλ.3 5. ὑμεῖς δὲ λέγετε" ος 

ow” “ ν ἃ “ , ~ ἃ 
ἂν εἴπῃ τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί, Δῶρον, ὃ 
aA > > a > ~~ A > A , 
ἐὰν ἐξ ἐμοῦ ὠφεληθῇς, καὶ od μὴ τιμήσει 
τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ, ἢ τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ. 

6. καὶ ἠκυρώσατε τὸν νόμον τοῦ θεοῦ 
διὰ τὴν παράδοσιν ὑμῶν. 

7. ὑποκριταί, καλῶς ἐπροφήτευσεν 

le “ « * 4 
περὶ ὑμῶν Ἡσαΐας, λέγων, 

8, Ὃ λαὸς οὗτος, K.T.A. 


MATT. v. 38—39. 
Ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρήθη" ᾿Οφθαλμὸν ἀντὶ 
ὀφθαλμοῦ, καὶ ὀδόντα ἀντὶ ὀδόντος. 39. 
ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, μὴ ἀντιστῆναι τῷ 





πονηρῷ" ἀλλ᾽ ὅστις σε ῥαπίσει ἐπὶ τὴν 
, 4 > ~ ‘ 
δεξιάν σου σιαγόνα, στρέψον αὐτῷ καὶ 


τὴν ἄλλην" 


It must not be forgotten that Irenzeus makes very 


explicit statements as to the recognition of other sources 
of evangelical truth than our Gospels by the Valentinians, 
regarding which we have fully written when discussing 
the founder of that sect.2 We know that they professed 
to have direct traditions from the Apostles through 
Theodas, a disciple of the Apostle Paul ;* and in the 


1 Epiph., Heor., xxxiii. 4. 

? This phrase, from Leviticus xx. 9, occurs further on in the next 

chapter. 

3 Epiph., Heor., xxxiii. § 4. 

* Ib., § 6. In the next chapter, ὃ 7, there is ἔνα yap μόνον εἶναι ἀγαθὸν 
θεὸν τὸν ἑαυτοῦ πατέρα ὁ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν ἀπεφήνατο, κιτιλ. οἵ, Matt. xix.17..... 
εἷς ἐστὶν ὁ ἀγαθός. ; 

5 See Vol. ii. p. 75 ff. 5 Clemens Al., Strom., vii. 17. 

VOL, II, Q 


226 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


Epistle to Flora allusion is made to the succession of 
doctrine received by direct tradition from the Apostles.’ 
Trenzeus says that the Valentinians profess to derive their 
views from unwritten sources,? and he accuses them of 
rejecting the Gospels of the Church,3 but, on the other 
hand, he states that they had many Gospels different 
from what he calls the Gospels of the Apostles.* 
~ With regard to Heracleon, it is said that he wrote 
Commentaries on the third and fourth Gospels. The 
authority for this statement is very insufficient. The 
assertion with reference to the third Gospel is based solely 
upon a passage in the Stromata of the Alexandrian 
Clement. Clement quotes a passage found in Luke xii. 
8, 11, 12, and says: “ Expounding this passage, Hera- 
cleon, the most distinguished of the School of Valentinus, 
says as follows,” ἄς This is immediately interpreted 
into a quotation from a Commentary on Luke.® We 
merely point out that from Clement’s remark it by no 
means follows that Heracleon wrote a Commentary at all, 
and further there is no evidence that the passage com- 
mented upon was actually from our third Gospel.? The 
Stromata of Clement were not written until after a-p. 
193, and in them we find the first and only reference to 
this supposed commentary. We need not here refer to 
the Commentary on the fourth Gospel, which is merely 

1 Epiphanius, Heer., xxxiii. 7. 

3 Ady. Heer., i. 8, ὃ 1. ® 1b., mi. 2, $1. * Ib., ii. 11, δ 9. 

5 Τοῦτον ἐξηγούμενος τὸν τόπον Ἡρακλέων, ὁ τῆς Οὐαλεντίνου σχολῆς δοκιμώ- 
τατος, κατὰ λέξιν φησὶν, xd. Strom., iv. 9, § 73. 

‘In Luce igitur Evangelium Commentaria edidit Heracleon, &c. 
Grabe, Spicil. Patr., ii. p. 83. 

7 The second reference by Clement to Heracleon is in the fragment 
§ 25; but it is doubted by apologists (cf. Westcott, On the Canon, p. 264). 
Tt would, however, tend to show that the supposed Commentary could not 


be upon our Luke, as it refers to an apostolic injunction regarding 
baptism not found in our Gospels. . 


CELSUS. 227 


inferred from references in Origen (6. A.D. 225), but of 
which we have neither earlier nor fuller information.’ We 
must, however, before leaving this subject, mention that 
Origen informs us that Heracleon quotes from the Preach- 
ing of Peter (Κήρυγμα Πέτρου, Preedicatio Petri), a work 
which, as we have already several times mentioned, was 
largely cited by Clement of Alexandria as authentic and 
inspired Holy Seripture.? 

The epoch at which ΠΈΣ ΤΕ and Heracleon 
flourished would in any case render testimony regarding 
our Gospels of little value. The actual evidence which 
they furnish, however, is not of a character to prove even 
the existence of our Synoptics, and much less does it in 
any way bear upon their character or authenticity. 


2. 


A similar question of date arises regarding Celsus, who 
wrote a work, entitled Λόγος ἀληθής, True Doctrine, 
which is no longer extant, against which Origen com- 
posed an elaborate refutation. The Christian writer 
takes the arguments of Celsus in detail, presenting to us, 
therefore, its general features, and giving many extracts ; 
and as Celsus professes to base much of his accusation 
upon the writings in use amongst Christians, although he 
does not name a single one of them, it becomes important 
to ascertain what those works were, and the date at which 

1 Neither of the works, whatever they were, could haye been written 
before the end of the second century, Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 22 ἢ, 
130 f., 165; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 91 f.; Hbrard, Evang. Gesch., 
p. 874, § 142; Lipsius, Zeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1867, p. 81 f. 

2 Clem, Al., Strom., vi. 5, § 39, 6, § 48, 7, § 58, 15, § 128. Canon 
Westcott states of Ptolemzus: ‘‘Two statements however which ho 
makes are.at variance with the Gospels: that our Lord’s ministry was 
completed in a year; and that He continued for eighteen months with his 


disciples after His Resurrection.” On the Canon, p. 268, 
Q2 


228 SOPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


Celsus wrote, As usual, we shall state the case by 
giving the reasons assigned for an early date. 

Arguing against Volkmar and others, who maintain, 
from a passage at the close of his work, that Origen, 
writing about the second quarter of the third century, 
represents Celsus as his contemporary,’ Tischendorf, 
referring to the passage, which we shall give in its place, 
proceeds to assign an earlier date upon the following 
erounds : “ But indeed, even in the first book, at the com- 
mencement of the whole work, Origen says: ‘Therefore, 
I cannot compliment a Christian whose faith is in danger 
of being shaken by Celsus, who yet does not even (οὐδὲ) 
still (ἔτι) live the common life among men, but already 
and long since (ἤδη καὶ πάλαι) is dead.’ . .. .. In the 
same first book Origen says: ‘ We have heard that there 
. were two men of the name of Celsus, Epicureans, the 
first under Nero ; this one’ (that is to say, ours) ‘under 
Hadrian and later.’ It is not impossible that Origen 
mistakes when he identified his Celsus with the Epicurean 
living ‘under Hadrian and later ; but it is impossible to 
convert the same Celsus of whom Origen says this into 
a contemporary of Origen. Or would Origen himself in 
the first book really have set his Celsus ‘under Hadrian 
(117—138) and later,’ yet in the eighth have said : ‘We 
will wait (about 225), to see whether he will still ac- 
complish this design of making another work follow ?’ 
Now, until some better discovery regarding Celsus is 
attained, it will be well to hold to the old, with the ac- 
ceptance that Celsus wrote his book about the middle of ° 
the second century, probably between 150—160,” &c.? 


1 Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 80; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 99 f. 
3 Aber auch schon im ersten Buche zu Anfang der ganzen Schrift sagt 
Origenes: ‘‘Duher kann ich mich nicht eines Christen freuen, dessen 


CELSUS. 929 


It is scarcely necessary to point out that the only 
argument advanced by Tischendorf bears solely against 
the assertion that Celsus was a contemporary of Origen, 

“about 225,” and leaves the actual date entirely un- 
settled. He not only admits that the statement of 
Origen regarding the identity of his opponent with the 
Epicurean of the reign of Hadrian “and later,” may be 
erroneous, but he tacitly rejects it, and having abandoned 
the conjecture of Origen as groundless and untenable, he 
substitutes a conjecture of his own, equally unsupported 
by reasons, that Celsus probably wrote between 150— 
160. Indeed, he does not attempt to justify this date, 
but arbitrarily decides to hold by it until a better can be 
demonstrated. He is forced to admit the ignorance of 
Origen on the point; and he does not conceal his own. 

Now it is clear that the statement of Origen in the 
preface to his work, quoted above, that Celsus, against 
whom he writes, is long since dead,’ is made in the belief 
that this Celsus was the Epicurean who lived under 
Hadrian,? which Tischendorf, although he avoids explana- 
Glaube Gefahr liuft durch Celsus wankend gemacht zu werden, der doch 
nicht einmal (οὐδὲ) mehr (ἔτι) das gemeine Leben unter den Menschen ᾿ 
lebt, sondern bereits und liingst (ἤδη καὶ πάλαι) verstorben ist.” 

In demselben ersten Buche sagt Origenes: ‘‘ Wir haben ἀράν τί; isa 
zwei Minner Namens Celsus Epikuraer gewesen, der erste unter Nero, 
dieser” (4, h. der unsrige) ‘‘ unter Hadrian und spater.” Hs ist nicht 
unmdglich, dass sich Origenes irrte, wenn er in seinem Celsus den ‘‘unter 
Hadrian und spiter” lebenden Epikuriier wiederfand ; aber es ist. un- 
moglich, denselben Celsus, von welchem Origenes dies aussagt, zu einem 
Zeitgenossen des Origenes zu machen. Oder hatte wirklich gar Origenes 
selbst im 1. Buche seinen Celsus ‘‘unter Hadrian (117—138) und spiater’”’ 
gesetzt, im 8. aber gesagt: ‘‘ Wir wollen abwarten (um 225) ob er diescs 
Vorhaben, eine andere Schrift folgen zu lassen, noch ausfiihren werde ? 
Nun so lange keine bessere Entdeckung tiber Celsus gelingt, wirds wol 
beim Alten bleiben mit der Annahme, dass Celsus um die Mitte des 2. 
Jahrhunderts, vielleicht zwischen 150 und 160 sein Buch verfasst, &c,” 


Wann wurden, τ. s. w., p. 74, 
1 Contra Cels., preef., § 4, tt fe Os 


230 ‘SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


tion of the reason, rightly recognizes to be a mistake. 
Origen undoubtedly knew nothing of his adversary, and 
it obviously follows that, his impression that he is Celsus 
the Epicurean being erroneous, his statement that he 
was long since dead, which is based upon that impression, 
loses all its value. Origen certainly at one time con- 
jectured his Celsus to be the Epicurean of the reign 
of Hadrian, for he not only says so directly in the 
passage quoted, but on the strength of his belief in the 
fact, he accuses him of inconsistency: “ But Celsus,” he 
says, “must be convicted of contradicting himself; for 
it is known from other of his works that he was an 
Epicurean, but here, because he considered that he could 
attack Christianity more effectively by not avowing the 
views of Epicurus, he pretends, &c. . . . Remark, there- 
fore, the falseness of his mind,” &c.1 And from time to 
time he continues to refer to him as an Epicurean,? 
although it is evident that in the writing before him he 
constantly finds evidence that he is of a wholly different 
school. Beyond this belief, founded avowedly on mere 
hearsay, Origen absolutely knows nothing whatever as 
-to the personality of Celsus, or the time at which he 
wrote,®? and he sometimes very naively expresses his 
uncertainty regarding him. Referring in one place to 
certain passages which seem to imply a belief in magic 
on the part of Celsus, Origen adds: “1 do not know 
whether he is the same who has written several books 


1 ᾿Ελεγκτέον δὴ ὡς τὰ ἐναντία ἑαυτῷ λέγοντα τὸν Κέλσον. Εὑρίσκεται μὲν 
γὰρ ἐξ ἄλλων συγγραμμάτων ᾿Επικούρειος dv’ ἐνταῦθα δὲ, διὰ τὸ δοκεῖν εὐλογώ- 
τερον κατηγορεῖν τοῦ λόγου, μὴ ὁμολογῶν τὰ ᾿Επικούρου, προσποιεῖται, K.TA. . « 
“Opa οὖν τὸ νόθον αὐτοῦ τῆς ψυχῆς, κιτιλι Contra Cels., i. 8, 

7 ὍΣ Contra Cels., i. 10, 21, iii. 75, 80, iv. 86, 

3 Neander, K. G., 1842, i. p. 274. 


CELSUS. 231 


against magic.”* Tlsewhere he says: “. . . the Epicu- 
rean Celsus (if he be the same who composed two other 
books against Christians),” &c.? 

Not only is it apparent that Origen knows nothing of 
the Celsus with whom he is dealing, however, but it 
is almost impossible to avoid the conviction that during 
the time he was composing his work his impressions 
concerning the date and identity of his opponent became 
considerably modified. In the earlier portion of the 
first book* he has heard that his Celsus is the Epicurean 
of the reign of Hadrian, but a little further on,* as we 
have just seen, he confesses his ignorance as to whether 
he is the same Celsus who wrote against magic, which 
Celsus the Epicurean actually did. In the fourth book ® 
as we have just seen, he expresses uncertainty as to 
whether the Epicurean Celsus had composed the work 
against Christians which he is refuting, and at the close 
of his treatise he treats him as a contemporary. He 
writes to his friend Ambrosius, at whose request the 
refutation of Celsus was undertaken: ‘ Know, however, 
that Celsus has promised to write another treatise after 
this one.... If, therefore, he has not fulfilled his 


1 Οὐκ οἶδα, εἰ ὁ αὐτὸς ὧν τῷ γράψαντι κατὰ μαγείας βιβλία πλείονα. Contra 
Cels., J. 68. 

2... ὁ Ἐπικούρειος Κέλσος (εἴ ye οὗτός ἐστι καὶ ὁ κατὰ Χριστιανῶν ἄλλα δύο 
βιβλία συντάξας,) κιτιλ. Contra Cels., ivy. 36. With regard to the word 
ἄλλα, the most competent critics have determined that the doubt expressed 
is whether the Epicurean Celsus wrote the work against Christians which 
Origen is here refuting. Such a remark applied to any books against 
Christians of which no information is given would be absurdly irrelevant, 
Neander, K. G., i. p. 2738, anm. 2; Baur, K. 6. ἃ. drei erst, Jabrh., i. 
p. 383 f.,anm. 1; Scholten, Die iilt. Zeugnisse, p. 99. We may point 
out that the opening passage of the 4th book of Origen’s work, as well 
as subsequent extracts, seems to indicate a distinct division of the treatise 
of Celsus into two parts which may fully oxplain the δύο βιβλὶα of this 
sentence, 

4 i, 8 4 i, 68, δ iy, 36, 


232 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


promise to write a second book, we may well be satisfied 
with the eight books in reply to his Discourse. If, how- 
ever, he has commenced and finished this work also, 
seek it and send it in order that we may answer it also, 
and confute the false teaching in it,” &c. From this 
passage, and supported by other considerations, Volkmar 
and others assert that Celsus was really a contemporary 
of Origen.” To this, as we have seen, Tischendorf merely 
replies by pointing out that Origen in the preface says 
that Celsus was already dead, and that he was identical 
with the Epicurean Celsus who flourished under Hadrian 
and later. The former of these statements, however, 
was made under the impression that the latter was 
correct, and as it is generally agreed that Origen was 
mistaken in supposing that Celsus the Epicurean was 
the author of the Λόγος ἀληθής," and Tischendorf him- 
self admits the fact, the two earlier statements, that 
Celsus flourished under Hadrian and consequently that 
he had long been dead, fall together, whilst the subse- 
quent doubts regarding his identity not only stand, but 
rise into assurance at the close of the work in the final 


Δ σθι μέντοι ἐπαγγελλόμενον τὸν Κέλσον ἄλλο σύνταγμα μετὰ τοῦτο ποιή- 
σειν, . + . . Ei μὲν οὖν οὐκ ἔγραψεν ὑποσχόμενος τὸν δεύτερον λόγον, εὖ ἂν ἔχοι 
ἀρκεῖσθαι ἡμᾶς τοῖς ὀκτὼ πρὸς τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ ὑπαγορευθεῖσι βιβλίοις. Ei δὲ 
κἀκεῖνον ἀρξάμενος συνετέλεσε, ζήτησον, καὶ πέμψον τὸ σύγγραμμα, ἵνα καὶ πρὸς 
exelvo...- ὑπαγορεύσαντες, καὶ τῆν ἐν ἐκείνῳ capris ἀνατρέψωμεν᾽ K.T.d. 
Contra Cels., viii. 76. 

2 Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 80, cf. 165 ; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, 
p. 100; cf. Piette Die Zeugn., f. ἃ. Ey. Johann., p. 83; Ueberweg, 
Grundriss der Gesch. der Philos. des Alterth., 1867, i. p. 237. 

3. Neander, K. G., is p. 273 £.3; Baur, K. G. ἃ. drei erst, Jahrh., p. 
383 f., anm. 1; Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p- 80; Scholten, Die alt. Tae 
nisse, p. 99 f.; Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii. p. 398; Mosheim, Instit. Hist. 
Eccles., P. 1. lib. i. seec. ii. cap. 2,§8; De Rebus Christ. sac. ii. ὃ 19, 
note *; cf. Riggenbach, Die Zeugn. f. d. Ev. Johann., p, 83; Keim, 
Celsus’ Wahres Wort, 1873, p. 275 ff. 


CELSUS. 233 


request to Ambrosius.’ There can be no doubt that 
the first statements and the closing paragraphs are con- 
tradictory, aud whilst almost all critics pronounce against 
the accuracy of the former, the inferences from the 
latter retain full force, confirmed as they are by the inter- 
mediate doubts expressed by Origen himself. 

Even those who, like Tischendorf, in an arbitrary 
manner assign an early date to Celsus, although they 
do not support their conjectures by any reliable reasons 
of their own, all tacitly set aside these of Origen.? 
It is generally admitted by these, with Lardner? and 
Michaelis,* that the Epicurean Celsus to whom Origen 
was at one time disposed to refer the work against 
Christianity, was the writer of that name to whom 
Lucian, his friend and contemporary, addressed his 
Alexander or Pseudomantis, and who really wrote against 
magic,> as Origen mentions.© But although on this 
account Lardner assigns to him the date of A.p. 176, the 
fact is that Lucian did not write his Pseudomantis, as 
Lardner is obliged to admit,’ until the reign of the 
Emperor Commodus (180—193), and even upon the 

1 Contra Cels., viii. 76. 

2 Kirchhofer says that Origen himself does not assign a date to the work 
of Celsus: ‘‘ but as he (Celsus) speaks of the Marcionites, he must, in 
any case, be set in the second half of the second century.” Quellen- 
samml.,, p. 330, anm. 1; Lardner deeides that Celsus wrote under Marcus 
Aurelius, and chooses to date him A.D. 176. Works, viii. p. 6. Binde- 
mann dates between 170—180; Zeitschr. f. ἃ. Hist. Theol., 1842, H. 2, 
p: 60, 107 ff. ; ef. Michaelis, ἜΠΗ]. N. B., 1788, i. p. 41; Anger, Synops. 
Ey. Proleg., p. xl.; Riggenbach, Die Zeugn. f. ἃ. Ey. Johan., p. 83. Canon 


Westcott dates Celsus ‘‘ towards the close of the second century.” On the 
Canon, p. 356. Keim in his very recent work se Celsus dates the Work 
about A.D. 178. Oelsus’ Wahres Wort, 1873, p. 261 ff. 
3 Works, viii. p. 6. 4 Hinl, N. B., i. p. 41. 5 Wevdoudvris, ὃ 21. 
6 Contra Cels., i. 68; Neander, K. G., i. p. 275; Baur, K. G. drei erst. 
Jahrh., p. 383, aum. 1; cf. Keim, Celsus’ Wahres Wort, 1873, p. 275 ff. 
7 Works, vill. p. 6; οἵ, Bindemann, Zeitschr. hist. Theol. 1842; H, 2, 
p» 107. 


234 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


supposition that this Celsus wrote against Christianity, of 
which there is not the slightest evidence, there would be 
no ground whatever for dating the work before a.p. 180. 
On the contrary, as Lucian does not in any way refer to 
such a writing by his friend, there would be strong 
reason for assigning the work, if it be supposed to be 
written by him, to a date subsequent to the Pseudo- 
mantis. It need scarcely be remarked that the references 
of Celsus to the Marcionites,! and to the followers of 
Marcellina,? only so far bear upon the matter as to 
exclude an early date.* 

It requires very slight examination of the numerous 
extracts from, and references to, the work which Origen 
seeks to refute, however, to convince any impartial mind 
that the doubts of Origen were well founded as to 
whether Celsus the Epicurean were really the author of 
the Λόγος ἀληθής. As many critics of all shades of 
opinion have long since determined, so far from being an 
Kpicurean, the Celsus attacked by Origen, as the philoso- 
phical opinions which he everywhere expresses clearly 
show, was a Neo-Platonist.* Indeed, although Origen 
seems to retain some impression that his antagonist must 
be an Epicurean, as he had heard, and frequently refers 
to him as such, he does not point out Epicurean senti- 
ments in his writings, but on the contrary, not only calls 

1 Contra Cels., vy. 62, vi. 53, 74. 

5317... γι Oe: 

3. Trencus says that Marcellina came to Rome under Anicetus (157-—— 


168) and made many followers. Adv. Her., 1.°25,§6; ef. Epiphanius, 
Heer., xxvii. 6. 

4 Neander, Κι. G., i. p. 273 ff., 278 f.; Baur, KX. G. drei erst. Jahrh., p. 
388 ff., anm. 1; Mosheim, Instit. Hist, Eccles., lib. i. sec. ii. p. 1. cap. 2, 
§ 8; De Rebus Christ., sec. ii. ὃ 19, note *; Volkmar, Der Ursprung, 
p: 80; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 95; Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii, 
p- 398. Of. Keim, Celsus’ Wahres Wort, 1873, p. 286 f.; Bindemann, 
Zeitschr, hist, Theol, 1842, H, 2, p. 62 ff, 108 f, 


CELSUS, 235 


upon him no longer to conceal the school to which 
he belongs and avow himself an Epicurean,’ which Celsus 
evidently does not, but accuses him of expressing views 
inconsistent with that philosophy,® or of so concealing 
his Epicurean opinions that it might be said that he 
is an Epicurean only in name.* On the other hand, 
Origen is clearly surprised to find that he quotes so 
largely from the writings, and shows such marked leaning 
towards the teaching, of Plato, in which Celsus indeed 
finds the original and purer form of many Christian 
doctrines,* and Origen is constantly forced to discuss 
Plato in meeting the arguments of Celsus. 

The author of the work which Origen refuted, there- 
fore, instead of being an Epicurean as Origen supposed 
merely from there having been an Epicurean of the 
same name, was undoubtedly a Neo-Platonist, as 
Mosheim Jong ago demonstrated, of the School of Am- 
monius, who founded the sect at the close of the second 
century.’ The promise of Celsus to write a second book 
with practical rules for living in accordance with the 
philosophy he promulgates, to which Origen refers at the 
close of his work, confirms this conclusion, and indicates 
a new and recent system of philosophy.® An Epicurean 
would not have thought of such a work—it would 
have been both appropriate and necessary in connection 
with Neo-Platonism. 

We are, therefore, constrained to assign the work of 


? Contra Cels., ili. 80, iv. 54. 

3 Contra Cels,, i, 8. ὃ 7b., iv. 54. 

‘ Ib., i, 82, iii, 68, iv. 64, δῦ, 83, vi. 1, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 
18, 19, 20, 47, vii. 28, 31, 42, 58 f., &e., &e. 

* Inst. Hist. Eccles., lib. i. 5090. ii. p, i. cap. 2, ὃ 8; De Rebus Christ., 
geec, 11. ὃ 19, § 27, 

6 Cf, Neander, K, G., i. p, 278, 


236 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


Celsus to at least the early part of the third century, 
and to the reign of Septimius Severus. Celsus repeatedly 
accuses Christians, in it, of teaching their doctrines 
secretly and against the law, which seeks them out and 
punishes them with death,’ and this indicates a period 
of persecution. Lardner, assuming the writer to be the 
Epicurean friend of Lucian, from this clue supposes that 
the persecution referred to must have been that under 
Marcus Aurelius (f 180), and practically rejecting the 
data of Origen himself, without advancing sufficient 
reasons of his own, dates Celsus a.D. 176.2. As a Neo- 
Platonist, however, we are more accurately led to the 
period of persecution which, from embers never wholly 
extinct since the time of Marcus Aurelius, burst into 
fierce flame more especially in the tenth year of the 
reign of Severus® (4.D. 202), and continued for many 
years to afflict Christians. 

It is evident that the dates paces by apologists are 
wholly arbitrary, and even if the evidence we have 
produced were very much less conclusive than it is for 
the later epoch, the total absence of evidence for an 
earlier date would completely nullify any testimony 
derived from Celsus. It is sufficient for us to add that, 
whilst he refers to incidents of Gospel history and quotes 
some sayings which have parallels, with more or less 
of variation, in our Gospels, Celsus nowhere mentions 
the name of any Christian book, unless we except the 
Book of Enoch ;* and he accuses Christians, not without 
reason, of interpolating the books of the Sibyl, whose 
authority, he states, some of them acknowledged.*® 


1 Origen, Contra Cels., i.1, 3, 7, viii. 69. 
2 Works, viii. p. 6. > Eusebius, H. E., vi. 1, 2. 
4 Contra Cels., v. 54, 53. Ὁ: 1b,, vii. 53, ὅθ. 


THE CANON OF MURATORI. 237 


3. 

The last document which we need examine in connec- 
tion with the synoptic Gospels is the list of New Testa- 
ment and other writings held in consideration by the 
Church, which is. generally called, after its discoverer 
and first editor, the Canon of Muratori. This interesting 
fragment, which was published in 1740 by Muratori in 
his collection of Italian antiquities,’ at one time belonged 
to the monastery of Bobbio, founded by the Irish monk 
Columban, and was found by Muratori in the Ambrosian 
Library at Milan in a MS. containing extracts of little 
interest from writings of Eucherius, Ambrose, Chry- 
sostom, and others. Muratori estimated the age of the 
MS. at about a thousand years, but so far as we are 
aware no thoroughly competent judge has since ex- 
pressed any opinion upon the point. The fragment, 
which is defective both at the commencement and at 
the end, is written in an apologetic tone, and professes to 
give a list of the writings which are recognised by the 
Christian Church. It is a document which has no official 
character,? but which merely conveys the private views 
and information of the anonymous writer, regarding 
whom nothing whatever is known. From any point of 
view, the composition is of a nature permitting the 
widest differences of opinion. It is by some affirmed to 
be a complete treatise on the books received by the 
Church, from which fragments have been lost ;* whilst 


) Antiquit. Ital, Med. Aivi, iii. p, 851 ff. 

2 Reuss, Gesch, N. T., p. 303 f.; Hist. du Canon, p. 109; Scholz, Finl. 
A. u. N. T., i. p. 272; Tregelles, Canon Muratorianus, 1867, p. 1 ff. ; 
Westcott, On the Canon, p. 186. 

8. Credner, Gesch. N, Τὶ Kanon, p. 148; Volkmar, Anhang, p. 341 ff., 
p, 355, 


238 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


others consider it a mere fragment in itself! It is 
written in Latin which by some is represented as most 
corrupt,? whilst others uphold it as most correct. The 
text is further rendered almost unintelligible by every 
possible inaccuracy of orthography and grammar, which 
is ascribed diversely to the transcriber, to the translator, 
and to both. Indeed such is the elastic condition of 
the text, resulting from errors and obscurity of every 
imaginable description, that by means of ingenious con- 
jectures critics are able: to find in it almost any sense 
they desire.® Considerable difference of opinion exists 
as to the original language of the fragment, the greater 
number of critics maintaining that the composition is a 
translation from the Greek,® whilst others assert it to 


1 Hilgenfeld, Der Kanon, p. 39; Mayerhof', Hinl. petr. Schr., p. 
147; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 186, note 5; T'regelles, Can. Murat., 
p. 29 £ 

2 Bleek, Einl. N. T., p. 610; Credner, Zur Gesch. d. Kanons, p. 72 ; 
Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., iii. p. 205 ff.; Guericke, Beitriige 
Finl. N. T., p. 13; Reuss, Gesch. N. T., p. 303; Scholz, Einl. N. T., i. 
p- 271 ἢ; Tregelles, Can. Murat., p. 6 ἢ, p. 27; Westcott, On the 
Canon, p. 185. 

3 Volkmar considers it in reality the reverse of corrupt. After allow- 
ing for peculiarities of speech, and for the results of an Irish-English 
pronunciation by the monk who transcribed it, he finds the characteristic 
original Latin which is the old lingua volgata which in the Roman Pro- 
vinces, such as Africa, &c., was the written as well as the spoken lan- 
guage. Anhang zu Credner’s Gesch. N. T. Kanon, p. 341 ff. 

4 Credner, Zur Gesch, ἃ. Kanons, p. 72; Hilgenfeld, Der Kanon, p. 
39 f. ; Mayerhof, Einl. petr. Schr., p. 147 f. ; Scholz, Einl. A. u. N. T., 
i. p. 271 ἢ; Tregelles, Can. Murat., p. 2; Westcott, On the Canon, 
p. 185. 

5 Reuss, Gesch. N. T., p. 303; Hist. du Canon, p. 101; Hichhorn, Einl. 
N. T., iv. p. 34. 

6 Bunsen, Analecta Ante-Nic., 1854, i. p. 137 f. ; Bétticher, Zeitschr. f. 
ἃ. gesammte luth. Theol. u. Kirche, 1854, p. 127 f. ; Ewald, Gesch. ἃ. V. 
Isr., vii. p. 497; cf. p. 340, anm. 2; Guericke, Gesammtgesch. N. T., 
Ῥ. 593,anm.; Hilgenfeld, Der Kanon, p. 39 f.; Hug, Einl. N. T., i. p. 
106; Muratori, Antiq. Ital., iii. p. 851 ff.; Nolte, Tiib. Quartalschr., 
1860, p. 193 ff.; Routh, Rel. Sacr., i. p. 402; Scho/z, Hinl. A. ἃ, N. T., 1, 


THE CANON OF MURATORI, 239 


have been originally written in Latin.’ Its composition 
is variously attributed to the Church of Africa? and to a 
member of the Church in Rome.’ 

The fragment commences with the concluding portion 
of a sentence. . . . “ quibus tamen interfuit et ita 
posuit’””—“at which nevertheless he was present, and 
thus he placed it.” The MS. then proceeds: “ Third 
book of the Gospel according to Luke. Luke, that physi- 
cian, after the ascension of Christ when Paul took him 
with him as studious of the right, wrote it in his name 
as he deemed best (ex opinione)—nevertheless he had 
not himself seen the Lord in the flesh, and followed him 
according as he was able. Thus also he began to speak 
from the nativity of John.” The text, at the sense of 
which this is a closely approximate guess, though 


p. 271 f. ; Thiersch, Versuch, u. s. w., p. 385; T'regelles, Can. Murat. p. 4; 
Simon de Magistris, Daniel sec. 1xx. iy. p. 467; Volkmar, Der Ursprung, 
p. 28 ; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 185 ; cf. Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and 
Doctr., iii. p. 204, p. 210 f. 

1 Bleek, Ἐπ]. N. T., p. 640; Credner, Zur. Gesch. d. Kanons, p. 93; 
Gesch. N. T. Kanon, p. 144; Freindaller, Apud Routh, Rel. Sacr., i. 
Ῥ. 401 f. ; Hesse, Das Murat. Fragment, 1873, p. 25 ff. ; Lawrent, Neutest. 
Stud., 1866, p. 198 f.; Mayerhoff, Einl. petr. Schr., p. 147; Reuss, Gesch. 
N. Τ᾿, p. 305; Stosch, Comm. Hist. Crit. de Libr. N. T. Can., 1755, 
ὃς lxi. ἕν ; οἵ, Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., iii. p. 210 f. If the 
fragment, as there is good reason to believe, was originally written in 
Latin, it furnishes evidence that it was not written till the third century. 
Canon Westcott, who concludes from the order of the Gospels, &c., that 
it was not written in Africa, admits that: ‘‘ There is no evidence of the 
existence of Christian Latin Literature out of Africa till about the close of 
the second century.” 

2 Oredner, Gesch. N. T. Kanon, p. 141 ff., p. 168 ff. ; Donaldson, Hist. 
Chr. Lit. and Doctr. iii. p. 211; Reuss, Geseh. N. T., p. 303; Hist. du 
Canon, p. 109; ef. Volkmar, Anhang zu Credner’s Gesch. N. T. Kan., 
p. 341 f. 

3. Guericke, Beitriige N. T., 1828, p. 7; Hilgenfeld, Der Kanon, p. 
39; Meyer, H’buch Hebriierbr., 1867, p. 7; Reithmayr, inl. Can. 
B.N. B., p. 65; Scholz, Ἐπ]. A. u. N. T., i. p. 271; Tischendorf, Wann 
wurden, τ. 8. w., p. 9; Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 27f.; cf. Anh. z. 
Credner’s Gesch. N. Τὶ Kan., p. 341 f. ; Westcott, On the Oanon, p. 186, 


240 SUPERNATURAL. RELIGION. 


several other interpretations might be maintained, is as 
follows: Tertio evangelii librum secundo Lucan Lucas 
iste medicus post ascensum Christi cum eo Paulus quasi 
ut juris studiosum secundum adsumsisset numeni suo 
ex opinione concribset dominum, tamen nec ipse vidit 
in carne et idem prout asequi potuit ita et ad nativitate 
Johannis incipet dicere. 

The MS. goes on to speak in more intelligible lan- 
euage “of the fourth of the Gospels of John, one 
of the disciples.” (Quarti evangeliorum Johannis ex 
decipolis) regarding the composition of which the writer 
relates a legend, which we shall quote when we come 
to deal with that Gospel. The fragment then goes 
on to mention the Acts of the Apostles,—which is 
ascribed to Luke—thirteen epistles of Paul in pecu- 
liar order, and it then refers to an Epistle to the - 
Laodiceans and another to the Alexandrians, forged, in 
the name of Paul, after the heresy of Marcion, “and 
many others which cannot be received by the Catholic 
Church, as gall must not be mixed with vinegar.” The 
{upistle to the Ephesians bore the name of Epistle to 
the Laodiceans in the list of Marcion, and this may be 
a reference to it. The Epistle to the Alexandrians is 
generally identified with the Epistle to the Hebrews,? 
although some critics think this doubtful, or deny the 
fact, and consider both Epistles referred to pseudographs 

1 Hilgenfeld, Der Kanon, p. 42; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 129 ; 
Westcott, On the Canon, p. 190, note 1; cf. Schnekenburger, Beitr. Ein]. 
N. T. 1832, p. 153 ff.; Tertullian, Ady. Marc., v. 11,17. It will be 
remembered that reference is made in the Epist. to the Colossians to an 
Ipistle to the Laodiceans which is lost. Col. iv. 16, 

2 Hilgenfeld, Der Kanon, p. 42; Késtlin, Theol. Jahrb., 1854, p. 416; 
Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 129; Wieseler, Th. Stud. u. Krit., 1847, 


Ρ. 840, 1857, p. 97 f., and so also, Hichhorn, Hug, Miinster, Credner, Volk~ 
mar, Schleiermacher, Semler, &c., ὥς, 


THE CANON OF MURATORI. 241 


attributed to the Apostle Paul.’ The Epistle of Jude, 
and two (the second and third) Epistles of John are, 
with some tone of doubt, mentioned amongst the received 
books, and so is the Book of Wisdom. ‘The Apocalypses 
of John and of Peter only are received, but some object 
to the latter being read in church. 

The Epistle of James, both Epistles of Peter, the 
Epistle to the Hebrews (which is probably indicated as 
the Epistle to the Alexandrians), and the first Epistle of 
John are omitted altogether, with the exception of a 
quotation which is supposed to be from the last-named 
Epistle, to which we shall hereafter refer. Special 
reference is made to the Pastor of Hermas, which we 
shall presently discuss, regarding which the writer 
expresses his opinion that it should be read privately 
but not publicly in the church, as it can neither be 
classed amongst the prophets nor among the apostles. 
The fragment concludes with the rejection of the writings 
of several heretics.? . 

It is inferred that, in the missing commencement of 
the fragment, the first two Synoptics must have been 
mentioned. This, however, cannot be ascertained, and so 
far as these Gospels are concerned, therefore, the ““Canon 
of Muratori” furnishes no evidence stronger than mere 
conjecture. The statement regarding the third Synoptic 
merely proves the existence of that Gospel at the time 
the fragment was composed, and we shall presently 


1 Guericke, Beitrige, N. T., p. 7 f.; Thiersch, Versuch, τι. 5. w., p. 385; 
Westcott, On the Canon, p. 190, note 1. 

3 The text of the fragment may be found in the following amongst 
many other books, of which we only mention some of the more accessible. 
Credner, Zur Gesch. ἃ. Kanons, p. 73 ff. ; Gesh. N. T. Kanon, p. 153 ff. ; 
Hilgenfeld, Der Kanon, p. 40 ff. ; Rowth, Reliq. Sacr., i. p. 394 ff. ; Airch- 
hofer, Quellensamml., p..1 ff. ; T’regelles, Canon Murat., p. 17 ff.; Bunsen, 
Analecta Ante-Nic., i. p. 125 ff. ; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 467 ff. 

VoL, 11. RK 


242 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


endeavour to form some idea of that date, but beyond 
this fact the information given anything but tends to 
establish the unusual credibility claimed for the Gospels. 
It is declared by the fragment, as we have seen, that the 
third Synoptic was written by Luke, who had not 
himself seen the Lord, but narrated the history as best 
he was able. It is worthy of remark, moreover, that 
even the Apostle Paul, who took Luke with him after the 
ascension, had not been a follower of Jesus either, nor 
had seen him in the flesh, and certainly he did not, by 
the showing of his own Epistles, associate much with 
the other Apostles, so that Luke could not have had 
much opportunity while with him of acquiring from 
them any intimate knowledge of the events of Gospel 
history. It is undeniable that the third Synoptic is not 
the narrative of an eye-witness, and the occurrences 
which it records did not take place in the presence, or 
within the personal knowledge, of the writer, but were 
derived from tradition, or other written sources. Such 
testimony, therefore, could not in any case be of much 
service to our third Synoptic; but when we consider 
the uncertainty of the date at which the fragment 
was composed, and the certainty that it could not 
have been written at an early period, it will become 
apparent that the value of the evidence is reduced to a 
minimum. 

We have already incidentally mentioned that the 
writer of this fragment is totally unknown, nor does 
there exist any clue by which he can be identified. All 
the critics who have assigned an early date to the com- 
position of the fragment have based their conclusion, 
almost solely, upon one statement made by the Author 
regarding the Pastor of Hermas. He says: “ Hermas in 


THE CANON OF MURATORI, 243 


truth composed the Pastor very recently in our times in 
the city of Rome, the Bishop Pius his brother, sitting in 
the chair of the church of the city of Rome. And 
certainly it should be read, but it cannot be published 
in the church to the people, neither being among the 
‘prophets, whose number is complete, nor amongst the 
apostles in the end of time.” | 

“ Pastorem vero nuperrime temporibus nostris in urbe 
Roma Herma conscripsit sedente cathedra urbis Rome 
ecclesiee Pio episcopus fratre ejus et ideo legi eum 
quidem oportet se publicare vero in ecclesia populo 
neque inter prophetas completum numero neque inter 
apostolos in fine temporum potest.” ἢ 

Muratori, the discoverer of the MS., conjectured for 
various reasons, which need not be here detailed, that 
the fragment was written by Caius the Roman Presbyter, 
who flourished at the end of the second (c. Ἁ.Ὁ. 196) and 
beginning of the third century, and in this he was fol- 
lowed by a few others? The great mass of critics, 
however, have rejected this conjecture, as they have 
likewise negatived the fanciful ascription of the compo- 
sition by Simon de Magistris to Papias of Hierapolis,° 
and by Bunsen to Hegesippus.* Such attempts to identify 
the unknown author are obviously mere speculation, and 
it is impossible to suppose that, had Papias, Hegesippus, 
or any other well-known writer of the same period com- 
posed such a list, Eusebius could have failed to refer to 


1 With the exception of a few trifling alterations we give these quota- 
tions as they stand in the MS. 

2 Antiq. Ital., iii. p. 854 ff.; Gallandi, Bibl. Vet. Patr., 1788, ii, p. 
xxxiii.; F'reindaller, apud Routh, Rel. Sacr., i. p. 401; cf. Hefele, Patr. 
Ap. Proleg. p. lxiii. 

5 Daniel secundum LXX. 1772; Dissert., iv. p. 467 ff. 

4 Analecta Ante-Nic., 1854, i. p. 125; Hippolytus and his Age, i, p. 
314, 

R 2 


244 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


it, as so immediately relevant to the purpose of his work. 
Thiersch even expressed a suspicion that the fragment 
was a literary mystification on the part of Muratori 
himself. 


The mass of critics, with very little independent con- 
sideration, have taken literally the statement of the 
author regarding the composition of the Pastor “ very 
recently in our times” (nuperrime temporibus nostris), 
during the Episcopate of Pius (4.p. 142—157), and have 
concluded the fragment to have been written towards 
the end of the second century.2, We need scarcely say 
that a few writers would date it even earlier. On the 
other hand, and we consider with reason, many critics, 
including men who will not be accused of opposition to 
an early Canon, assign the composition to a later period, 


1 Versuch, u. s. w., p. 387. 

2 Bleek, Einl. N. T., p. 640; Hinl. z. Hebrierbr., p. 121, anm. ; Credner, 
Zur Gesch. d. Kan., p. 84, p. 92 f., Gesch. N. T. Kanon, p. 167; Corrodi, 
Versuch ein. Beleucht. ἃ. Gesch. jiid. u. chr. Bibel-Kanons, 1792, ii. p. 
219 f.; Davidson, Introd. N. T., i. p. 7; Feilmoser, Einl. N. T., p. 208, 
anm.; Guericke, Gesammtgesch. N. T., p. 587 f.; Beitriige N. T., p. 7; 
Hilgenfeld, Der Canon, p. 39; Lumper, Hist. de Vita, Script., &c., SS. 
Patr., vu. 1790; p. 26 ff.; Liicke, Hinl. Offenb. Joh., 1852, ii. p. 595; 
Mosheim, De Rebus Christ., p. 164 ff.; Meyer, Krit., ex. H’buch. iib. d. 
Hebraerbr., 1867, p. 7; Olshausen, -Kchth. ἃ. vier kan. Evv., p. 281 ff. ; 
Reuss, Gesch. N. T., p. 809, p. 305; Hist. du Canon, p. 108; Reithmayr, 
EHinl. N. B., p. 65, anm. 1; Routh, Relig. Sacr., i. p. 897 ff.; Chr. F. 
Schmid, Unters. Offenb. Joh,, τ. 5. w., 1771, p. 101 ff. ; Hist. Antiq. et 
Vindic. Canonis, 1775, p. 308 ἢ; Schréckh, Chr. K. G., iii. 1777, p. 
426 ff. ; Stosckh, Comment. Hist. Crit. de libris N. T. Can., 1755, δὲ lxi. ff. ; 
Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 127 ; Scholz, Hinl. A. u. N. T., i. p. 272; 
Thiersch (if not spurious), Versuch, τι. s. w., p. 384 f., ef. 315; Volkmar, 
(A.D. 190—200) Anh. zu Credner’s Gesch. N. T. Kan., p. 859; Wéeseler, 
Th. Stud. u. Krit., 1847, p. 815 ff. 

3 Hesse (before Irenzeus, Clement Al., and Tertullian), Das Muratori sche 
Fragment, 1873, p. 48; Hwald (in late middle of 2nd century), Gesch. d. 
V. Isr., vii. p. 497; Tischendorf (A.D. 160—170), Wann Sadar u. 8. W., 
p. 9; Tregelles (c. A.D. 170), Canon Murat., p. 1 f., p. 4, note c.; Westcott 
(not much later than A.D. 170), On the ᾿ΕΝ p. 185; tangent (δ: A.D. 
160), Neutest, Studien, p. 198. 


THE CANON OF MURATORI. 245 


between the end of the second or beginning of the third 
century and the fourth century.’ 

When we examine the ground upon which alone an 
early date can be supported, it becomes apparent how 
impossible it is to defend it. The only argument of any 
weight is the statement with regard to the composition 
of the Pastor, but with the exception of the few apolo- 
gists who do not hesitate to assign a date totally incon- 
sistent with the state of the Canon described in the 
fragment, the great majority of critics feel that they are 
forced to place the compesition at least towards the end 
of the second century, at a period when the statement in 
the composition may agree with the actual opinions in 
the Church, and yet in a sufficient degree accord with 
the expression “ very recently in our times,” as applied 
to the period of Pius of Rome, 142—157. It must be 
evident that, taken literally, a very arbitrary interpreta- 
tion is given to this indication, and in supposing that 
the writer may have appropriately used the phrase thirty 
or forty years after the time of Pius, so much licence is 
taken that there is absolutely no reason why a still 
greater interval may not be allowed. With this sole 
exception, there is not a single word or statement in 
the fragment which would oppose our assigning the 
composition to a late period of the third century. 
Volkmar has very justly pointed out, however, that in 
saying “very recently in our times” the writer merely 


' Donaldson (end of first half of 3rd century), Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., 
iii. p. 212; Hug (beginning 3rd century), Hinl. N. T., i. p. 105 f.; end 
of 2nd, or beginning of 3rd century : Mayerhoff, Hinl. petr. Schr., p. 
147; Keil ad Fabric. Bibl. Greece, vii. 1801, p. 285; Hichhorn, Einl. 
N. T., iv. p. 34; Tayler, The Fourth Gospel, 1867, p. 38; Zimmermann, 
Diss. Orit. Seript., &e. &., a Murat. rep. exhib., 1805, and to these bry 2 
be added all those who assign the fragment to ata, 


246 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


intended to distinguish the Pastor of Hermas from the 
writings of the Prophets and Apostles: It cannot be 
classed amongst the Prophets whose number is com- 
plete, nor amongst the Apostles, inasmuch as it was 
only written in our post-apostolic time. This is an ac- 
curate interpretation of the expression,’ which might 
with perfect propriety be used a century after the time 
of Pius. We have seen that there has not appeared a 
single trace of any Canon in the writings of any of the 
Fathers whom we have examined, and that the Old 
Testament has been the only Holy Scripture they have 
acknowledged ; and it is inadmissible to date this anony- 
mous fragment, regarding which we know nothing, 
earlier than the very end of the second or beginning of 
the third century, upon the interpretation of a phrase 
which. would be equally applicable even a century later. 
There is, however, as we have said, nothing whatever 
requiring so early a date as that, and it is probable that 
the fragment was not written until an advanced period of 
the third century.?_ The expression used with regard to 
Pius: “Sitting in the chair of the church,” is quite 
unprecedented in the second century or until a very 
much later date.* It is argued that the fragment is 
imperfect, and that sentences have fallen out; and in 
regard to this, and to the assertion that it is a transla- 


1 Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 28 ; Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., 
iil. p. 212; Lomann, Bijdragen ter Inleid. op de Joh. Schr., p. 29; 
Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 127. 

3 If the fragment, as there is good reason to believe, was originally 
written in Latin, this fact, we repeat, would point to the conclusion that 
it was composed in the third century. Dr. Westcott, who with so many 
others considers that it emanates from the Roman Church, himself says 
as an argument for a Greek original: ‘‘ There is no evidence of the 
existence of Christian Latin Literature out of Africa till about the close 
of the second century.” On the Canon, p. 188, note 1. 

3 Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., iii. p. 212. 


THE CANON OF MURATORI. 247 


tion from the Greek, it has been well remarked by a 
writer whose judgment on the point will scarcely be 
called prejudiced : “If it is thus mutilated, why might 
it not also be interpolated? If moreover the translator 
was so ignorant of Latin, can we trust his translation ? 
and what guarantee have we that he has not paraphrased 
and expanded the original? The force of these remarks 
is peculiarly felt in dealing-with the paragraph which 
gives the date. The Pastor of Hermas was not well 
known to the Western Church, and it was not highly 
esteemed. It was regarded as inspired by the Eastern, 
and read in the Eastern Churches. We have seen, 
moreover, that it was extremely unlikely that Hermas 
was a real personage. It would be, therefore, far more 
probable that we have here an interpolation, or addition 
by a member of the Roman or African Church, probably 
by the translator, made expressly for the purpose of 
serving as proof that the Pastor of Hermas was not 
inspired. The paragraph itself bears unquestionable 
mark of tampering,” ! &c. 

It would take us too far were we to discuss the various 
statements of the fragment as indications of date, and 
the matter is not of sufficient importance. It contains 
nothing involving an earlier daté than the third century. 
The facts of the case may be briefly summed up as 
follows, so far as our object is concerned. The third 
Synoptic is mentioned by a totally unknown writer, at 
an unknown, but certainly not early, date, in all proba- 
bility during the third century, in a fragment which we 
possess in a very corrupt version very far from free from 
suspicion of interpolation in the precise part from which 
the early date is inferred. The Gospel is attributed to 

1 Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., iii. p. 209. 


248 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


Luke, who was not one of the followers of Jesus, and of 
whom it is expressly said that “he himself had not seen 
the Lord in the flesh,” but wrote “as he deemed best (ex 
opinione),” and followed his history as he was able (et 
idem prout assequi potuit).’ If the evidence, therefore, 
even came within our limits as to date, which it does not, 
it could be of no value for establishing the trustworthi- 
ness and absolute accuracy’of the narrative of the third 
Synoptic, but on the contrary it would distinctly tend to 
destroy its evidence, as the composition of one who 
undeniably was not an eye-witness of the miracles 
reported, but collected the materials, long after, as best 
he could.? 


4. 


We may now briefly sum up the results of our exami- 
nation of the evidence for the synoptic Gospels. After 
having exhausted the literature and the testimony 
bearing on the point, we have not found a single distinct 
trace of any one of those Gospels during the first century 
and a half after the death of Jesus. Only once during 
the whole of that period do we find any tradition even, 
that any one of our Evangelists composed a Gospel at 
all, and that tradition, so far from favouring our Synop- 
tics, is fatal to the claims of the first and second. Papias, 


1 The passage is freely rendered thus by Canon Westcott : «‘ The Gospel 
of St. Luke, it is then said, stands third in order [in the Canon], having 
been written by ‘ Luke the physician,’ the companion of St. Paul, who, 
not being himself an eye-witness, based his narrative on such information 
as he could obtain, beginning from the birth of John.” On the Canon, 
p- 187. 

2 We do not propose to consider the Ophites and Peratici, obscure 
Gnostic sects towards the end of the second century. There-is no direct 
evidence regarding them, and the testimony of writers in the third 
century, like Hippolytus, is of no value for the Gospels. 


RESULTS. 249 


about the middle of the second century, on the occasion 
to which we refer, records that Matthew composed the 
Discourses of the Lord in the Hebrew tongue, a state- 
ment which totally excludes the claim of our Greek 
Gospel to apostolic origin. Mark, he said, wrote down 
from the casual preaching of Peter the sayings and doings 
of Jesus, but without orderly arrangement, as he was not 
himself a follower of the Master, and merely recorded 
what fell from the Apostle. This description, likewise, 
shows that our actual second Gospel could not, in its 
present form, have been the work of Mark. There is no 
other reference during the period to any writing of 
Matthew or Mark, and no mention at all of any work 
ascribed to Luke. If it be considered that there is any 
connection between Marcion’s Gospel and our third 
Synoptic, any evidence so derived is of an unfavourable 
character for that Gospel, as it involves a charge against 
it, of being interpolated and debased by Jewish elements. 
Any argument for the mere existence of our Synoptics 
based upon their supposed rejection by heretical leaders 
and sects has the inevitable disadvantage, that the very 
testimony which would show their existence would 
oppose their authenticity. There is no evidence of their 
use by heretical leaders, however, and no direct reference 
to them by any writer, heretical or orthodox, whom we 
have examined. We need scarcely add that no reason 
whatever has been shown for accepting the testimony of 
these Gospels as sufficient to establish the reality of 
miracles and of a direct Divine Revelation.! It is not 
pretended that more than one of the synoptic Gospels 


‘ A comparison of the contents of the three Synoptics would have con- 
firmed this conclusion, but this is not at present necessary, and we must 
hasten on. 


250 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


was written by an eye-witness of the miraculous occur- 
rences reported, and whilst no evidence has been, or can 
be, produced even of the historical accuracy of the narra- 
tives, no testimony as to, the correctness of the inferences 
from the external phenomena exists, or is now even con- 
ceivable. The discrepancy between the amount of evi- 
dence required and that which is forthcoming, however, 
is greater than under the circumstances could have been 
thought possible. 


PART III. 


—¢—- 


THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 








CHAPTER I. 
THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 


WE shall now examine, in the same order, the wit- 
nesses already cited in connection with the Synoptics, 
and ascertain what evidence they furnish for the date 
and authencity of the fourth Gospel. 

Apologists do not even allege that there is any 
reference to the fourth Gospel in the so-called Epistle 
of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians.’ 

A few critics? pretend to find a trace of it in the Epistle 
of Barnabas, in the reference to the brazen Serpent as a 
type of Jesus. Tischendorf states the case as follows :— 


1 Canon Westcott, however, cannot resist the temptation to press 
Clement into service. He says: ‘‘ In other passages it is possible to trace 
the influence of St. John, ‘ The blood of Christ hath gained for the whole 
world the offer of the grace of repentance.’ ‘Through Him we look 
steadfastly on the heights of heaven; through Him we view as in a glass 
(ἐνοπτριζόμεθα) His spotless and most excellent visage ; through Him the 
eyes of our heart were opened ; through Him our dull and darkened un- 
derstanding is quickened with new vigour on turning to his marvellous 
light.’”” He does not indicate more clearly the nature and marks of the 
‘‘ influence” to which he refers. As he also asserts that the Epistle 
‘‘ affirms the teaching of St. Paul and St. James,” and that the Epistle to 
the Hebrews is ‘‘ wholly transfused into Clement’s mind,” such an argu- 
ment does not require a single remark. On the Canon, p. 23 f. 

? Lardner, Canon Westcott, and others do not refer to it at all. 


252 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION, 


“ And when in the same chapter xii. it is shown how 
Moses made the brazen serpent a type of Jesus ‘who 
should suffer (die) and yet himself make living,’ the 
natural inference is that Barnabas refers to John iii. 14, f. 
even if the use of this passage in particular cannot be 
proved. Although this connection cannot be affirmed, 
since the author of the Epistle, in this passage as in many 
others, may be independent, yet it is justifiable to ascribe 
the greatest probability to its dependence on the passage 
in John, as the tendency of the Epistle in no way re- 
quired a particular leaning to the expression of John. 
The disproportionately more abundant use of express 
quotations from the Old Testament in Barnabas is, on 
the contrary, connected most intimately with the ten- 
dency of his whole composition.” Ὁ 

It will be observed that the suggestion of reference to 
the fourth Gospel is here advanced in a very hesitating 
way, and does not indeed go beyond an assertion of 
probability. We might, therefore, well leave the matter 
without further notice, as the reference in no case could 
be of any weight as evidence. Om examination of the 
context, however, we find that there is every reason to 
conclude that the reference to the brazen serpent is made 
direct to the Old Testament. The author who delights 
in typology is bent upon showing that the cross is pre- 
figured in the Old Testament. He gives a number of 
instances, involving the necessity for a display of ridicu- 
lous ingenuity of explanation, which should prepare us 
to find the comparatively simple type of the brazen 
serpent naturally selected. After pointing out that 
Moses, with his arms stretched out in prayer that the 
Israelites might prevail in the fight, was a type of the 


1 Wann wuiden, ἃ. 5. w., 96 f. 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 253 


cross, he goes on to say: “‘ Again Moses made a type of 
Jesus that he must suffer and himself make alive (καὶ 
αὐτὸς ζωοποιήσει) whom they thought to have destroyed 
on the cross when Israel was falling ;”! and connecting 
the circumstance that the people were bit by serpents 
and died with the transgression of Eve by means of the 
serpent, he goes on to narrate minutely the story of Moses 
and the brazen serpent, and then winds up with the 
words: “Thou hast in this the glory of Jesus; that in 
him are all things and for him.”? It is impossible for any 
one to read the whole passage without seeing that the 
reference is direct to the Old Testament. There is no 
ground for supposing that the author was acquainted 
with the fourth Gospel. 

To the Pastor of Hermas Tischendorf devotes only two 
lines, in which he states that ‘‘it has neither quotations 
from the Old nor from the New Testament.”* Canon 
Westcott makes the same statement,® but, unlike the 
German apologist, he proceeds subsequently to affirm that 
Hermas makes “ clear allusions to St. John ;” which few 

1 Πάλιν Μωῦσῆς ποιεῖ τύπον τοῦ “Incod, ὅτι δεῖ αὐτὸν παθεῖν, καὶ αὐτὸς 
ζωοποιήσει, ὃν δόξουσιν ἀπολωλεκέναι ἐν σημείῳ, πίπτοντος τοῦ Ἰσραήλ. Ch xii. 

3 Ἔχεις πάλιν καὶ ἐν τούτοις τὴν δόξαν τοῦ ᾿ΙἸησοῦ, ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ πάντα καὶ εἰς 
αὐτόν. Ch. xii.; cf. Heb. ii. 10; Rom. xi, 86. 

5. Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 14 : Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 66 ff. ; 
Miiiler, Das Barnabasbr., p. 281; Hilgenfeld, Die ap. Viiter, p. 50, anm, 
8; Theol. Jahrb., 1850, p. 396; Zeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1868, p. 215; 
Scholten rightly points out that the distinguishing ὑψοῦσθαι of the 
fourth Gospel is totally lacking in the Epistle. Die alt. Zeugn., p. 14. 
The brazen serpent is also referred to in the Wisdom of Solomon, xvi. 
5, 6, and by Philo, Leg. Alleg., ii. § 20; De Agricultura, ὃ 22; cf. Volk- 
mar, Der Ursprung, p. 67 f. ; Tobler, Zeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1860, p. 190 f. 
Justin Martyr also refers to the type of the brazen serpent without any 
connection with the fourth Gospel, Dial., 91, 94. 

* Wann wurden, τι. s. w., p. 20, anm. 1; Ziicke makes no claim to its 
testimony, the analogies being ‘‘ too slight and distant.”” Comment. Evy, | 


Joh., 1840, i. p. 44, anm. 2. 
5 On the Canon, p. 175, 


254 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


or no apologists support. This assertion he elaborates 
and illustrates as follows :— 

“The view which Hermas gives of Christ’s nature and 
work is no less harmonious with apostolic doctrine, and 
it offers striking analogies to the Gospel of St. John. 
Not only did the Son ‘ appoint angels to preserve each of 
those whom the Father gave to him;’ but ‘ He himself 
toiled very much and suffered very much to cleanse our 
sins, . . . And so when he himself had cleansed the 
sins of the people, he showed them the paths of life by 
giving them the Law which he received from his 
Father.’! He is ‘a Rock higher than the mountains, able 
to hold the whole world, ancient, and yet having a new 
gate.’? ‘ His name is great and infinite, and the whole 
world is supported by him.’* ‘He is older than Cre- 
ation, so that he took counsel with the Father about the 
creation which he made.’* ‘He is the sole way of access 
to the Lord ; and no one shall enter in unto him other- 
wise than by his Son.’ "5 


1 Kal αὐτὸς τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν ἐκαθάρισε πολλὰ κοπιάσας καὶ πολλοὺς κόπους 
3 “- A ΄ 
ἡντληκώς᾽" . . . - αὐτὸς οὖν καθαρίσας τὰς ἁμαρτίας τοῦ λαοῦ ἔδειξεν αὐτοῖς τὰς 
τρίβους τῆς ζωῆς, δοὺς αὐτοῖς τὸν νόμον ὃν ἔλαβε παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ. Sim., v. 6. 
2 εἰς μέσον δὲ τοῦ πεδίου ἔδειξέ μοι πέτραν μεγάλην λευκὴν ἐκ τοῦ πεδίου 
ἀναβεβηκυῖαν. ἡ δὲ πέτρα ὑψηλοτέρα ἦν τῶν ὄρεων, τετράγωνος ὥστε δύνασθαι ὅλον 
τὸν κόσμον χωρῆσαι᾽ παλαιὰ δὲ ἦν ἡ πέτρα ἐκείνη, πύλην ἐκκεκομμένην ἔχουσα" ὡς 
3 na 
πρόσφατος δὲ ἐδόκει μοι εἶναι ἡ ἐκκόλαψις THs πύλης. ἡ δὲ πύλη οὕτως ἔστιλβεν 
ὑπὲρ τὸν ἥλιον, ὥστε με θαυμάζειν ἐπὶ τῇ λαμπηδόνι τῆς πύλης" Simil., ix. 2. 
ς δ 4 7 \ ς DN ς cy Rot 6. a > , cal , 4 ς 
ἡ πέτρα, φησίν, αὕτη καὶ ἡ πύλη ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστί. πῶς, φημί, κύριε, ἡ 
» SSF ς 5 , πὰς 4 , Ν a = LE © ‘ 
πέτρα παλαιά ἐστιν, ἡ δὲ πύλη καινή; “Axove, φησί, kal σύνιε, ἀσύνετε. Ὃ μὲν 
υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ πάσης τῆς κτίσεως αὐτοῦ προγενέστερός ἐστιν, ὥστε σύμβουλον 
αὑτὸν γενέσθαι τῷ πατρὶ τῆς κτίσεως αὐτοῦ" διὰ τοῦτο καὶ παλαιός ἐστιν. ἡ δὲ 
ON ὃ. \ , , , 7 a 2 , “5. Φ ὃ , cal ς cal ~ 
πύλη διὰ τί καινή, φημί, κύριε ; “Ort, φησίν, ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν Ths συντε- 
, A 3 A a a es if ¢ σ c La , 
λείας φανερὸς ἐγένετο, διὰ τοῦτο καινὴ ἐγένετο ἡ πύλη, ἵνα οἱ μέλλοντες σώζεσθαι 
δι αὐτῆς εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν εἰσέλθωσι τοῦ θεοῦ. Simil., ix. 12. 
8 ὸ ΕΣ - Cs cal 6 a ΄ > ‘ N > , LY sy , 
τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ μέγα ἐστὶ Kal ἀχώρητον καὶ τὸν κόσμον ὅλον 
βαστάζει. Simil., ix. 14. 
4 Simil., ix. 12, quoted above. 
a a a 
5 ἡ δὲ πύλη ὁ vids τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστίν. αὕτη pia εἴσοδός ἐστι πρὸς τὸν κύριον. 
’, A a ~ 3 = 
ἄλλως οὖν οὐδεὶς εἰσελεύσεται πρὸς αὐτὸν εἰ μὴ διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ. Sim., ix. 12. 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 255 


This is all Canon Westcott says on the subject. He 
does not attempt to point out any precise portions of the 
fourth Gospel with which to compare these “ striking 
analogies,” nor does he produce any instances of simi- 
larity of language, or of the use of the same terminology 
as the Gospel in this apocalyptic allegory. It is evident 
that such evidence could in no case be of any value for 
the fourth Gospel. 

When we examine more closely, however, it becomes 
certain that these passages possess no real analogy with 
the fourth Gospel, and were certainly not derived from 
it. There is no part of them that has not close parallels 
in writings antecedent to our Gospel, and there is no use 
of terminology peculiar to it. He does not even once 
use the term Logos. Canon Westcott makes no mention 
of the fact that the doctrine of the Logos and of the pre- 
existence of Jesus was enunciated long before the com- 
position of the fourth Gospel, with almost equal clearness 
and fulness, and that its development can be traced 
through the Septuagint translation, the “ Proverbs of 
Solomon,” some of the Apocryphal works of the Old 
Testament, the writings of Philo, and in the Apocalypse, 
Epistle to the Hebrews, as well as the Epistles of Paul. 
To any one who examines the passages cited from the 
works of Hermas, and still more to any one acquainted 
with the history of the Logos doctrine, it will, we fear, 
seem wasted time to enter upon any minute refutation of 
such imaginary “analogies.” We shall, however, as 
briefly as possible refer to each passage quoted. 

The first is taken from an elaborate similitude with 
regard to true fasting, in which the world is likened to a 


? On the Canon, p. 177 f. We give the Greek quotations as they stand 
in Canon Westcott’s notes: and also the translations in his text, without, 
however, adopting them. 


256 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


vineyard, and in explaining his parable the Shepherd 
says: “God planted the vineyard, that is, he created 
the people and gave them to his Son: and the Son 
appointed his angels over them to keep them: and he 
himself cleansed their sins, having suffered many things 
and endured many labours. . . . He himself, there- 
fore, having cleansed the sins of the people, showed 
them the paths of life by giving them the Law which he 
received from his Father.”? 

It is difficult indeed to find anything in this passage 
which is in the slightest degree peculiar to the fourth 
Gospel, or apart from the whole course of what is taught 
in the Epistles, and more especially the Epistle to the 
Hebrews. We may point out a few passages for com- 
parison: Heb. 1. 2—4; 1. 10—11; v. 8—9; vii. 12, 
17—19; vill. 6—10; x. 10—16; Romans vii. 24—17 ; 
Matt. xxi. 33; Mark xii. 1 ; Isaiah v. 7, liii. 

The second passage is taken from an elaborate parable 
on the building of the Church: (a) “ And in the middle 
of the plain he showed me a great white rock which had 
risen out of the plain, and the rock was higher than 
the mountains, rectangular so as to be able to hold the 
whole world, but that rock was old having a gate (πύλη) 
hewn out of it, and the hewing out of the gate (πύλη) 
seemed to me to be recent.”?. Upon this rock the tower 
of the Church is built. Further on an explanation is 
given of the similitude, in which occurs another of the 
passages referred to. (8) “This rock (πέτρα) and this gate 
(πύλη) are the Son of God. ‘ How, Lord,’ I said, ‘is the 
rock old and the gate new?’ ‘ Listen,’ he said, ‘ and un- 
derstand, thou ignorant man. (y) The Son of God is 
older than all of his creation (ὁ μὲν vids τοῦ θεοῦ πάσης 


1 Simil., v. 6. ἘΣ δος τας Ὡς 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 257 


τῆς κτίσεως αὐτοῦ προγενέστερός ἐστιν), so that he was 
a councillor with the Father in his work of creation ; 
and for this is he old.’ (δὴ) ‘And why is the gate new, 
Lord ?’ I said ; ‘ Because,’ he replied, ‘he was mani- 
fested at the last of the days (ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν) 
of the dispensation ; for this cause the gate was made 
new, in order that they who shall be saved might enter 
by it into the kingdom of God.’ ”? 

And a few lines lower down the Shepherd further 
explains, referring to entrance through the gate, and 
introducing another of the passages cited: (e) ““ ‘ In this 
way, he said, ‘no one shall enter into the kingdom of 
God unless he receive his holy name. If, therefore, you 
cannot enter into the City unless through its gate, so 
also,’ he said, ‘a man cannot enter in any other way into 
the kingdom of God than by the name of his Son 
beloved by him’ . . . ‘and the gate (πύλη) is. the 
Son of God. This is the one entrance to the Lord.’ In 
no other way, therefore, shall any one enter in to him, 
except through his Son.”? 

Now with regard to the similitude of a rock we need 
scarcely say that the Old Testament teems with it; and 
we need not point to the parable of the house built upon 
a rock in the first Gospel. A more apt illustration is 
the famous saying with regard to Peter: “And upon 
this rock (πέτρα) I will build my Church,” upon which 
indeed the whole similitude of Hermas turns; and in 
1 Cor. x. 4, we read: “ For they drank of the Spiritual 
Rock accompanying them; but the Rock was Christ” 
(ἡ πέτρα δὲ ἣν ὁ Χριστός). There is no such similitude 


in the fourth Gospel at all. 


Ὁ Simil., ix. 12. Philo represents the Logos as a Rock (πέτρα). Quod 
det. potiori insid., § 31, Mangey, i. 213. 
"2 Simil., ix. 12. 8 Matt. vii. 24. 
VOL. 1]. 8 


258 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


We then have the “gate,” on which we presume 
Canon Westcott chiefly relies. The parable in John x. 
1—9 is quite different from that of Hermas,' and there 
is a persistent use of different terminology. The door 
into the sheepfold is always θύρα, the gate in the rock 
always πύλη. “I am the door,’? (ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ θύρα) is 
twice repeated in the fourth Gospel. “The gate is the 
Son of God” (ἡ πύλη ὁ vids τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστίν) is the declara- 
tion of Hermas. On the other hand, there are numerous 
passages, elsewhere, analogous to that in the Pastor of 
Hermas. Every one will remember the injunction in 
the Sermon on the Mount: Matth. vii. 13,14. ‘ Enter 
in through the strait gate (πύλη), for wide is the gate 
(πύλη), &e., 14. Because narrow is the gate (πύλη) 
and straitened is the way which leadeth unto life, and 
few there be that find it.”* The limitation to the one 
way of entrance into the kingdom of God: “by the 
name of his Son,” is also found everywhere throughout 
the Epistles, and likewise in the Acts of the Apostles ; 
as for instance: Acts iv. 12, “ And there is no salvation 
in any other: for neither is there any other name under 
heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.” 

The reasons given why the rock is old and the gate 
new (y, δὴ) have anything but special analogy with 
the fourth Gospel. We are, on the contrary, taken 
directly to the Epistle to the Hebrews in which the pre- 
existence of Jesus is prominently asserted, and between 
which and the Pastor, as in a former passage, we find 
singular linguistic analogies. For instance, take the 

1 Of. Heb. ix. 24, 11—12, &c. 2 John x. 7, 9. 

3 Compare the account of the new Jerusalem, Rey. xxi. 12 ff.; cf. 
xxii. 4,14. In NSimil. ix. 13, it is insisted that, to enter into the king- 


dom, not only ‘“‘his name ” must be borne, but that we must put on 
certain clothing. 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 259 


whole opening portion of Heb. i. 1: “God who at many 
times and in many manners spake in times past to the 
fathers by the prophets, 2. At the end of these days (ἐπ᾽ 
ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων) hath spoken to us by the 
Son whom he appointed heir (κληρονόμος) of all things, 
by whom he also made the worlds, 3. Who being the 
brightness of his glory and the express image of his 
substance, and upholding all things by the word of his 
power, when he had made a cleansing of our sins sat 
down at the right hand of Majesty on high, 4. Having: 
become so much better than. the angels,”? &c., &c. ; and 
if we take the different clauses we may also find them 
elsewhere constantly repeated, as for instance: (y) The 
son older than all his creation: compare 2 Tim. i. 9, 
Colossians i. 15 (“who is . . . the first born of all crea- 
tion”—6s ἐστιν... . πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως), 16, 
17, 18, Rev. ii. 14, x. 6. The works of Philo are full of 
this representation of the Logos, For example: “ For 
the Word of God is over all the universe, and the oldest 
and most universal of all things created” (καὶ 6 Λόγος δὲ 
τοῦ θεοῦ ὑπεράνω παντός ἐστι τοῦ κόσμου, Kal πρεσ- 
βύτατος καὶ γενικώτατος τῶν ὅσα γέγονε).58 Again, as to 

1 We may remark that in the parable Hermas speaks of the son as the 
heir (κληρονόμος), and of the slaye—who is the true son—also as co-heir 
(συγκληρονόμος), and a few lines below the passage above quoted, of the 
heirship (κληρονομίας). This is another indication of the use of this Epistle, 
the peculiar expression in regard to the son ‘‘ whom he appointed heir 
(κληρονόμος) of all things ” occurring here. Cf. Simil., γ. 2, 6. 

? Heb. 1. 1. Πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως πάλαι ὁ θεὸς λαλήσας τοῖς πατράσιν 
ἐν τοῖς προφήταις ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ, (2) ὃν 
ἔθηκεν κληρονόμον πάντων, δι᾿ οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας, (3) ὃς ὧν ἀπαύγασμα 
τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς 
δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ, δι᾿ ἑαυτοῦ καθαρισμὸν ποιησάμενος τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ 
τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς, (4) τοσούτῳ κρείττων γενόμενος τῶν ἀγγέλων, κιτιλ. 

3 Leg. Alleg., iii. § 61, Mangey, i. p. 121; cf. De Confus, Ling., § 28, 
Mang., 1. p. 427, § 14, ib. i. p. 414 ; De Profugis, ὃ 19, Mang., i. 561; 
De Caritate, ὃ 2, Mang., ii. 385, &c., ἄο. The Logos is constantly called 


82 


260 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


the second clause, that he assisted the Father in the 
work of creation, compare Heb. ii. 10, 1. 2, xi. 3, Rom. 
xi. 36, 1 Cor. viii. 6, Coloss. 1. 15, 16.2 

The only remaining passage is the following: “The 
name of the Son of God is great and infinite and 
supports the whole world.” For the first phrase, com- 
pare 2 Tim. iv. 18, Heb. i. 8 ; and for the second part of 
the sentence, Heb. i. 3, Coloss. 1.17, and many other 
passages quoted above.? 

The whole assertion * is simply absurd, and might well 
have been left unnoticed. The attention called to it, 
however, may not be wasted in observing the kind of evi- 
dence with which apologists are compelled to be content. 

Tischendorf points out two passages in the Epistles of 
pseudo-Ignatius which, he considers, show the use of the 
fourth Gospel. They are as follows—Epistle to the 
Romans vii.: “I desire the bread of God, the bread of 
heaven, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus 
Christ the son of God, who was born of the seed of 
David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God 
(πόμα θεοῦ), that is his blood, which is love incorrup- 
tible, and eternal life” (ἀένναος ζωή). This is compared 
by Philo “‘ the first-begotten of God ” {πρωτόγονος Θεοῦ Λόγος) ; ““ the most 
ancient son of God ” (πρεσβύτατος vids Θεοῦ). 

1 Cf. Philo, Leg. Alleg., ii. ὃ 31, Mangey, 1. 106; De Cherubim, § 35, 
Mang., i. 162, &c., &e. 

2 Cf. Philo, De Profugis, ὃ 20, Mangey, i. 562; Frag. Mangey, ii. 655; 
De Somniis, i. ὃ 41, Mang., i. 656. 

3 Canon Westcott also says: ‘‘In several places also St. John’s teach- 
ing on ‘ the Truth’ lies at the ground of Hermas’ words,” and in a note 
he refers to ‘‘ Mand. i11.=1 John ii. 27; iv. 6,” without specifying any 
passage of the book. (On the Canon, p. 176, and note 4.) Such un- 
qualified assertions unsupported by any evidence cannot be too strongly 
condemned. This statement is quite unfounded. 

4 Wann wurden, u. 8. w., p. 22f. Liicke does not attach much weight to 
any of the supposed allusions in these Epistles. Comm. Ey. Joh., i. p. 43. 


5 *Aprov Θεοῦ θέλω, ἄρτον οὐράνιον, ἄρτον ζωῆς, ὅς ἐστιν σὰρξ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 261 


with John vi. 41: “I am the bread which came down 
from heaven” 48... . “I am the bread of life,” 51... 
“And the bread that I will give is my flesh ;” 54. “He 
who eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath ever- 
lasting life” (ζωὴν αἰώνιων). Scholten has pointed out 
that the reference to Jesus as “born of the seed of David 
and Abraham” is not in the spirit of the fourth Gospel ; 
and the use of πόμα θεοῦ for the πόσις of vi. 55, and 
ἀένναος ζωή instead of ζωὴ αἰώνιος are also opposed to 
the connection with that Gospel.!. On the other hand, 
in the institution of the Supper the bread is described 
as the body of Jesus, and the wine as his blood; and 
reference is made there, and elsewhere, to eating bread 
and drinking wine in the kingdom of God,’ and the 
passage seems to be nothing but a development of this 
teaching. Nothing could be proved by such an 
analogy.* 

The second passage referred to by Tischendorf is in 
the Epistle to the Philadelphians vii.: “For if some 
would have seduced me according to the flesh, yet the 
Spirit is not seduced, being from God, for it knoweth 
whence it cometh and whither it goeth, and detects the 
secrets.”® Tischendorf considers that these words are 
based upon John iii. 6—8, and the last phrase: “ And 


τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, τοῦ γενομένου ἐν ὑστέρῳ ἐκ σπέρματος AaBid καὶ ᾿Αβραάμ- 
καὶ πόμα Θεοῦ θέλω, τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ, ὅ ἐστιν ἀγάπη ἄφθαρτος, καὶ ἀένναος ζωή. 
Ad Rom., vii. 

1 Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 54. 

2 Matt. xxvi. 26—29; Mark xiv. 22—25; Luke xxii. 17—20; 1 Cor. 
xi, 23—25; cf. Luke xiy. 15. 

3 Of. Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 54. 

* Cf. De Wette, Hinl. N. T., p. 225 f.; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, 
p. 54. 

® Ei γὰρ καὶ κατὰ σάρκα μέ τινες ἠθέλησαν πλανῆσαι, ἀλλὰ τὸ πνεῦμα οὐ 
πλανᾶται, ἀπὸ θεοῦ ὄν" οἶδεν γὰρ πόθεν ἔρχεται, καὶ ποῦ ὑπάγει, καὶ τὰ κρυπτὰ 


ἐλέγχει. Ad Philadelph., vii. 


262 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


detects the secrets,” upon verse 20. The sense of the 
Epistle, however, is precisely the reverse of that of the 
Gospel, which reads: “The wind bloweth where it 
listeth ; and thou hearest the sound thereof but knowest 
not whence it cometh and whither it goeth; so is every 
one that is born of the Spirit ;”? whilst the Epistle does 
not refer to the wind at all, but affirms that the Spirit of 
God does know whence it cometh, &. The analogy in 
verse 20 is still more remote: “For every one that doeth 
evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest 
his deeds should be detected.”? In 1 Cor. ii. 10, the 
sense is more closely found: “ For the Spirit searcheth 
all things, yea, even the deep things of God.”? It is 
evidently absurd to assert from such a passage the 
use of the fourth Gospel. Even Tischendorf recog- 
nizes that in themselves the phrases which he points out 
in pseudo-Ignatius could not, unsupported by other 
corroboration, possess much weight as testimony for the 
use of our Gospels. He says: “ Were these allusions of 
Ignatius to Matthew and John a wholly isolated phe- 
nomencn, and one which perhaps other undoubted results 
of inquiry wholly contradicted, they would hardly have 
any conclusive weight. But——.”® Canon Westcott 
says: “The Ignatian writings, as might be expected, are 
not without traces of the influence of St. John. The 
circumstances in which he was placed required a special 
enunciation of Pauline doctrine; but this is not so 

8 τὸ πνεῦμα ὅκου Ocha: πιεῖ, καὶ τὴν φωνὴν αὐχοῦ δύω, Gdn? οδὲ olbas. πόδιν 
ἔρχεται καὶ ποῦ ὑπάγει οὕτως ἐστὶν πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος. John 
li. 8. 

3 πᾶς yap 6 φαῦλα πράσσων μισεῖ τὸ φῶς καὶ οὐκ ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸ φῶς, iva μὴ 
ἐλεγχθῇ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ. John iii. 20. 

3 τὸ γὰρ πνεῦμα πάντα ἐραυνᾷ, καὶ τὰ βάθη τοῦ θεοῦ. 1 Cor. ii. 10. 


4 Οὗ De Wette, Einl. Ν. T., p. 225 f. 
5. Wann wurden, u. 8. w., p. 23. 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 263 


expressed as to exclude the parallel lines of Christian 
thought. Love is ‘the stamp of the Christian.’ (Ad 
Magn. v.) ‘Faith is the beginning and love the end of 
life” (Ad Ephes. xiv.) ‘Faith is our guide upward’ 
(dvaywyevs), but love is the road that ‘leads to God’ 
(Ad Eph. ix.) ‘The Eternal (ἀΐδιος) Word is the mani- 
festation of God’ (Ad Magn. viii.), ‘the door by which 
we come to the Father’ (Ad Philad. ix., cf. John x. 7), 
‘and without Him we have not the principle of true 
life’ (Ad Trall. ix.: οὗ χωρὶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ζῇν οὐκ 
ἔχομεν. οἵ, Ad Eph. ii.: Ἴ.Χ. τὸ ἀδιάκριτον ἡμῶν ζῇν). 
The true meat of the Christian is the ‘bread of God, 
the bread of heaven, the bread of life, which is the 
flesh of Jesus Christ,’ and his drink is ‘Christ’s blood, 
which is love incorruptible’ (Ad Rom. vii, cf. John vi. 
32, 51, 53). He has no love of this life; ‘his love has 
been crucified, and he has in him no burning passion for 
the world, but living water (as the spring of a new life) 
speaking within him, and bidding him come to his 
Father’ (Ad Rom. 1. ¢.). Meanwhile his enemy is the 
enemy of his Master, even the ‘ruler of this age.’ 
(Ad Rom. 1. ¢., 6 ἄρχων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου. Cf. John xii. 
31, xvi. 11: 6 ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου. and see 1 Cor. 
His 6, 8.*)” 

Part of these’ references we have already considered ; 
others of them really-do not require any notice whatever, 
and the only one to which we need to direct our atten- 
tion for a moment may be the passage from the Epistle 
to the Philadelphians ix., which reads: He is the door 
of the Fathers, by which enter in Abraham, Isaac 
and Jacob and the prophets, and the apostles, and the 


1 Westcott, On the Canon, p. 32 f., and notes. We have inserted in the 
text the references given in the notes. 


264 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


Church.”! This is compared with John x. 7.“ There- 
fore said Jesus again: Verily, verily, I say unto you, | 
am the door of the Sheep” (ἐγώ εἶμι ἡ θύρα τῶν προ- 
Barov). We have already referred, a few pages back,? 
to the image of the door. Here again it is obvious that 
there is a marked difference in the sense of the Epistle 
from that of the Gospel. In the latter Jesus is said to 
be the door into the Sheepfold ;* whilst in the Epistle, 
he is the door into the Father, through which not only 
the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles enter, but also the 
Church itself. Such distant analogy cannot warrant the 
conclusion that the passage shows any acquaintance with 
the fourth Gospel.4 As for the other phrases, they are 
not only without special bearing upon the fourth Gospel, 
but they are everywhere found in the canonical Epistles, as 
well as elsewhere. Regarding love and faith, for instance, 
compare Gal. v. 6, 14, 92: Rom. xii. 9, 10, vu 39, 
xb 93 1 Cora, θυ 33> Ephes: ag, Ἔ7 0 1 Ὁ, 
Vir 253 Philp. 4, 9,1 2S ‘Thess: 1 δ᾽ 1 ane 1, 14. 
vL. 11; 2 Tim, 1.13; Heb. x. 38: £, x1, &., &c. 

We might point out many equally close analogies in 
the works of Philo,® but it is unnecessary to do s0, 
although we may indicate one or two which first present 


1 Αὐτὸς ὧν θύρα τοῦ πατρὸς, δι᾽ ἧς εἰσέρχονται ᾿Αβραὰμ. καὶ ᾿Ισαὰκ καὶ ᾿Ιακὼβ 
καὶ of προφῆται, καὶ of ἀπόστολοι, καὶ ἡ ἐκκλησία. Ad Philad., ix. 

2 Vol. ii. p. 256 ff. 

3 Compare the whole passage, John x. 1—16. 

4 Cf. De Wette, Einl. N. T., p. 225 f.; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 
54 f.; Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii. p. 868 f. ; Liicke, Com. Ey. Joh., i. p. 
44, anm. 1. 

5 Philo’s birth is dated at least 20 to 30 years before our era, and his 
death about A.D. 40. His principal works were certainly written before 
his embassy to Caius. Delaunay, Philon d’Alexandrie, 1867, p. 11 f.; 
Ewald, Gesch. ἃ. V. Isr., vi. p. 239; Gfrérer, Gesch. des Urchristen- 
thums I., i. p. 5, p. 37 ff., p. 45; Déhne, Gesch. Darstell. jiid. alex. 
Religions Philos., 1834, 1 abth. p. 98, anm. 2. 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 265 


themselves. Philo equally has ‘‘the Eternal Logos” 
(ὁ ἀΐδιος Adyos),! whom he represents as the manifesta- 
tion of God in every way. ‘The Word is the likeness 
of God, by which the universe was created” (Λόγος δέ 
ἐστιν εἰκὼν θεοῦ, δ οὗ σύμπας ὁ κόσμος ἐδημιουργεῖτο)." 
He is “the substitute” (ὕπαρχος) of God,* “the hea- 
venly incorruptible food of the soul,” “the bread (ἄρτος) 
from heaven.” In one place he says: “and they who 
inquire what nourishes the soul .. . learnt at last that 
it is the Word of God, and the Divine Reason. ..... 
This is the heavenly nourishment to which the holy 
Scripture refers... . . saying, ‘Lo! I rain upon you 
bread (ἄρτος) from heaven.’ (Exod. xvi. 4.) ‘This is 
the bread (ἄρτος) which the Lord has given them 
to eat’” (Exod. xvi. 15).* And again: “For the one 
indeed raises his eyes towards the sky, perceiving the 
manna, the divine Word, the heavenly incorruptible food 
of the longing soul.”*> Elsewhere: “.... but it is 
taught by the initiating priest and prophet Moses, who 
declares: ‘This is the bread (dpros), the nourishment 
which God has given to the soul’—his own Reason and 
his own Word which he has offered; for this bread 
(ἄρτος) which he has given us to eat is Reason.” He 


1 De plant. Noe, ὃ 5, Mang., i. 332; De Mundo, ὃ 2, Mang., ii. 604. 

2 De Monarchia, ii. ὃ 5; Mang., ii. 225. 

3 De Agricult., ὃ 12, Mang., i. 808 ; De Somniis, i. § 41, Mang., i. 656 ; 
_ ef. Coloss. i. 15; Heb. i. 3; 2 Cor. iv. 4. 

4 Ζητήσαντες καὶ τί τὸ τρέφον ἐστὶ τὴν Wuyny. . « . εὗρον μαθόντες ῥῆμα 
θεοῦ καὶ Δόγον θεῖον... .. Ἢ δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἡ οὐράνιος τροφή, μηνύεται δὲ ἐν 
ταῖς ἱεραῖς ἀναγραφαῖς. ... λέγοντος. ““᾿Ιδοὺ ἐγὼ ὕω ὑμῖν ἄρτους ἐκ τοῦ 
οὐρανοῦ." De Profugis, § 25, Mangey, i. 566. 

°‘O μὲν yap τὰς ὄψεις ἀνατείνει πρὸς αἰθέρα, ἀφορῶν τὸ μάννα, τὸν θεῖον 
Λόγον, τὴν οὐράνιον φιλοθεάμονος ψυχῆς ἄφθαρτον τροφήν. Quis rerum Diy. 
Heres., ὃ 15, Mang., i. 484; Quod det. potiori insid., ὃ 81, Mang., i, 
213 +... Μάννα, τὸν πρεσβύτατον τῶν ὄντων Λόγον θεῖον, K.t.d. 

5 διδάσκεται δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ ἱεροφάντου καὶ προφήτου Μωῦΐσέως, ὃς ἐρεῖ “Οὗτός 


266 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


also says: “Therefore he exhorts him that can run 
swiftly to strain even breathless towards the highest 
Word of God who is the fountain of Wisdom, in order 
that by drinking of that stream, instead of death he 
may obtain eternal life”? It is the Logos who guides 
us to the Father, God “Having both created all things 
and led (ἀνάγων) the perfect man from the things of 
earth to himself by his Word.”? These are very imper- 
fect examples, but it may be asserted that there is not a 
representation of the Logos in the fourth Gospel which 
has not close parallels in the works of Philo. 

We have given these passages of the pseudo-Ignatian 
Epistles which are pointed out as indicating acquaintance 
with the fourth Gospel, in order that the whole case 
might be stated and appreciated. The analogies are too 
distant to prove anything, but were they fifty times more 
close, they could do little or nothing to establish an early 
origin for the fourth Gospel, and nothing at all to 
elucidate the question as to its character and authorship. 
The Epistles in which the passages occur are spurious 
and of no value as evidence for the fourth Gospel. They 
are not found in the three Syriac Epistles, which alone 
have some claim to authenticity. We have already 
stated the facts connected with the so-called Epistles of 
ἐστιν ὁ ἄρτος, ἡ τροφή, ἣν ἔδωκεν ὁ θεὸς τῇ ψυχῇ, προσενέγκασθαι τὸ ἑαυτοῦ 
ῥῆμα καὶ τὸν ἑαυτοῦ Λόγον" οὗτος γὰρ ὁ ἄρτος, ὃν δέδωκεν ἡμῖν φαγεῖν, τοῦτο τὸ 
ῥῆμα. Leg. Alleg., iii. ὃ 60, Mang., i. 121; ef. ἐδ., § 61, 62. 

1 Προτρέπει δὲ οὖν τὸν μὲν ὠκυδρομεῖν ἱκανὸν συντείνειν ἀπνευστὶ πρὸς τὸν 
ἀνωτάτω Λόγον θεῖον, ὃς σοφίας ἐστὶ πηγή, ἵνα ἀρυσάμενος τοῦ νάματος ἀντὶ 


θανάτου ζωὴν ἀΐδιον ἄθλον εὕρηται. De Profugis, § 18, Mang., i. 560. 
2 2... τῷ αὐτῷ Λόγῳ καὶ τὸ πᾶν ἐργαζόμενος καὶ τὸν τέλειον ἀπὸ τῶν 
περιγείων ἀνάγων ὡς ἑαυτόν. De Sacrif. Abelis et Caini, ὃ 3; Mang.,i. 165. 
3 In general the Epistles follow the Synoptic narratives, and not the 
account of the fourth Gospel. See for instance the reference to the 
anointing of Jesus, Ad Eph. xvii., cf. Matt. xxvi. 7 ff. ; Mark xiv. 3 ff. ; 
οὗ, John xii. 1 ff. 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 267 


Ignatius,' and no one who has attentively considered 
them can fail to see that the testimony of such docu- 
ments cannot be considered of any historic weight.? 

There are fifteen Epistles ascribed to Ignatius — of 
these eight are universally recognized to be spurious. 
Of the remaining seven, there are two Greek and Latin 
versions, the one much longer than the other. The 
longer version is almost unanimously rejected as inter- 
polated. The discovery of a still shorter Syriac version 
of “the three Epistles of Ignatius,’ convinced the 
majority of critics that even the shorter Greek version 
of seven Epistles must be. condemned, and that what- 
ever matter could be ascribed to Ignatius himself, if any, 
must be looked for in these three Epistles alone. The 
three martyrologies of Ignatius are likewise universally 
repudiated as mere fictions. Amidst such a mass of 
forgery, in which it is impossible to identify even a ᾿ 
kernel of truth, it would be preposterous to seek tes- 
timony to establish the authenticity of our Gospels. 

It is not pretended that the so-called Epistle of 
Polycarp to the Philippians contains any references to 
the fourth Gospel. ‘Tischendorf, however, affirms that it 
is weighty testimony for that Gospel, inasmuch as he 
discovers in it a certain trace of the first “Epistle of 
John,” and as he maintains that the Epistle and the 
Gospel are the works of the same author, any evidence 
for the one is at the same time evidence for the other.* 
We shall hereafter consider the point of the common 


1 Vol. i. p. 258 ff. 

2 Weizstcker, Unters. evang. Gesch., p. 234; Bleek, Beitrage, p. 224, 
p. 257 f.; Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii. p. 368 ; Scholten, Die alt. Zeug- 
nisse, p. 50 ff.; Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 39 ff. ; ef. Riggenbach, Die 
Zeugn. Ey. Johannis, p. 101 f.; Bohringer, Die Kirche Chr. τ. ihre 
Zeugn., 1. i. 1860, p. 46. _§ Wann wurden, τ. 5. w., p. 24 f. 


268 


SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


authorship of the Epistles and fourth Gospel, and here 
confine ourselves chiefly to the alleged fact of the 


reference. 


The passage to which Tischendorf alludes we subjoin, 
with the supposed parallel in the Epistle. 


EPISTLE OF POLYCARP, VII. 
For whosoever doth not confess 
Jesus Christ hath come in the flesh 
is Antichrist, and whosoever doth 
not confess the martyrdom of the 
cross is of the devil, and whosoever 
perverteth the oracles of the Lord 


1 EPISTLE oF JOHN, Iv. 3. 
And every spirit that confesseth 
not the Lord Jesus come in the 
flesh is not of God, and this is the 
(spirit) of Antichrist of which we 
have heard that it should come, 
and now already is in the world. 


to his own lusts, and saith that 
there is neither resurrection nor 
judgment, he is the firstborn of 
Satan. 

Πᾶς yap, ds ἂν μὴ ὁμολογῇ, ᾿Ιησοῦν 
Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθέναι, ἀντί- 


Καὶ πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ 
Ἰησοῦν κύριον ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα, ἐκ 
χριστός ἐστὶν: καὶ ὃς ἂν μὴ ὁμολογῇ | τοῦ θεοῦ οὖκ ἔστιν, καὶ τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ 
τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ σταυροῦ, ἐκ τοῦ | τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου, ὅ τι ἀκηκόαμεν ὅτι 
διαβόλου ἐστίν" καὶ ὅς ἂν μεθοδεύῃ τὰ | ἔρχεται, καὶ νῦν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἐστὶν ἤδη." 
λόγια τοῦ κυρίου πρὸς τὰς ἰδίας ἐπιθυ-- ; 
μίας, καὶ λέγῃ μήτε ἀνάστασιν μήτε 
κρίσιν εἶναι, οὗτος πρωτότοκός ἐστι τοῦ 
Σατανᾶ. : 





This passage does not occur as a quotation, and the 
utmost that can be said of the few words with which it 
opens is that a phrase somewhat resembling, but at the 
same time materially differing from, the Epistle of John 
is interwoven with the text of the Epistle to the Philip- 
pians. If this were really a quotation from the canonical 
Epistle, it would indeed be singular that, considering the 
supposed relations of Polycarp and John, the name of 
the apostle should not have been mentioned, and a quo- 
tation have been distinctly and correctly made. On the 

1 We give the text of the Sinaitic Codex as the most favourable. -The 
great majority of the other MSS., and all the more important, present 


very marked difference from this reading. 
2 Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 46. 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 269 


other hand, there is no earlier trace of the canonical 
Epistle, and, as Volkmar argues, it may well be doubted 
whether it may not rather be dependent on the Epistle 
to the Philippians, than the latter upon the Epistle of 
John.' 

We believe with Scholten that neither is dependent 
on the other, but that both adopted a formula in use in 
the early Church against various heresies,” the superficial 
coincidence of which is without any weight whatever as 
evidence for the use of either Epistle by the writer of 
the other. Moreover, it is clear that the writers refer 
to different classes of heretics. Polycarp attacks the 
Docetee who deny that Jesus Christ has come in the 
flesh, that is with a human body of flesh and blood ; 
whilst the Epistle of John is directed against those who 
deny that Jesus who has come in the flesh is the 
Christ the Son of God.* Volkmar points out that in 
Polycarp the word “ Antichrist” is made a proper name, 
whilst in the Epistle the expression used is the abstract 
“Spirit of Antichrist.” Polycarp in fact says that who- 
ever denies the flesh of Christ is no Christian but Anti- 
christ, and Volkmar finds this direct assertion more 
original than the assertion of the Epistle ; “ Every spirit 
that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh 
is of God,’* &. In any case it seems to us clear 
that in both writings we have only the independent 


' Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 48 f. 

2 Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 45 f. ; cf. Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 
48 f.; cf. Ireneus, Ady. Heer., i. 24, ὃ 4; pseudo-Jgnatius, Ad Smyrn., 
V., Vi. 

3 Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 46 ff.; Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 
48 ff. ; cf. 1 John ii. 22; iv. 2, 3; v. 1, 5 ff. 

* Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 49 ff. ; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, 
p- 46 ff. at 


270 . SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


enunciation, with decided difference of language and 
sense, of a formula current in the Church, and that 
neither writer can be held to have originated the con- 
demnation, in these words, of heresies which the Church 
had begun vehemently to oppose, and which were 
merely an application of ideas already well known, as 
we see from the expression of the Epistle in reference to 
the “Spirit of Antichrist, of which ye have heard that it 
cometh.” Whether this phrase be an allusion to the 
Apocalypse xiii, or to 2 Thessalonians iL, or to tradi- 
tions current in the Church, we need not inquire ; it is 
sufficient that the Epistle of John avowedly applies a 
prophecy regarding Antichrist already known amongst 
Christians, which was equally open:to the other writer 
and probably familiar in the Church. This cannot under 
any circumstances be admitted as evidence of weight for 
the use of the 1st Epistle of John. There is no testimony 
whatever of the existence of the Epistles ascribed to 
John previous to this date, and that fact would have to 
be established on sure grounds before the argument we 
are considering can have any value. 

On the other hand we have already seen! that whilst 
there is strong reason to doubt the authenticity of the 
Epistle attributed to Polycarp, and a certainty that in 
any case it is, in its present form, considerably inter- 
polated, it cannot, even if genuine in any part, be dated 
earlier than the last years of that Father, and it is 
apparent, therefore, that the use of the 1st Epistle of 
John, even if established, could not be of value for the 
fourth Gospel, of which the writing does not show a 
trace. So far indeed from there being any evidence that 
Polycarp knew the fourth Gospel, everything points to 

1 Vol. i. Ρ. 214 ff. 








EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 271 


the opposite conclusion. In a.p. 160 we find him taking 
part in the Paschal controversy, contradicting the state- 
ments of the fourth Gospel,' and supporting the Synoptic 
view, contending that the Christian festival should be 
celebrated on the 14th Nisan, the day on which he 
affirmed that the Apostle Johu himself .had observed it.? 
Irenzeus, who represents Polyearp as the disciple of 
John, says of him: “ For neither was Anicetus able to 
persuade Polycarp not to observe it (on the 14th) 
because he had always observed it with John the dis- 
ciple of our Lord, and with the rest of the apostles with 
whom he consorted.”* Not only, therefore, does Poly- 
carp not refer to the fourth Gospel, but he is on the 
contrary a very important witness against it as the work 
of John, for he represents that apostle as practically con- 
tradicting the Gospel of which he is said to be the 
author. 

The fulness with which we have discussed the cha- 
racter of the evangelical quotations of Justin Martyr 
renders the task of ascertaining whether his works indi- 
cate any acquaintance with the fourth Gospel compara- 
tively easy. The detailed statements already made 
enable us without preliminary explanation directly to 
attack the problem, and we are freed from the necessity 
of making extensive quotations to illustrate the facts of 
the case. 

Whilst apologists assert with some boldness that 
Justin made use of our Synoptics, they are evidently, 
and with good reason, less confident in maintaining his 


) John xiii. 1, xvii. 28, xix. 14, 81; ef. Matt. xxvi.17; Mark xiv. 12; 
Luke xxii. 8. 

2 Cf. Ireneeus, Ady. Hoor., iii. 8, § 4; Eusebius, Il. E., iv. 14, v. 24. 

3 Eusebius, H. E., y. 24. 


272 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


acquaintance with the fourth Gospel. Canon Westcott 
states : “ His references to St. John are uncertain ; but 
this, as has been already remarked, follows from the 
character of the fourth Gospel. It was unlikely that he 
should quote its peculiar teaching in apologetic writings 
addressed to Jews and heathens; and at the same time 
he exhibits types of language and doctrine which, if not 
immediately drawn from St. John, yet mark the presence 
of his influence and the recognition of his authority.” v 
This apology for the neglect of the fourth Gospel seems 
based upon a consciousness of its unhistorical character ; 
but we may merely remark that where such a writer is 
reduced to so obvious an admission of the scantiness of 
evidence furnished by Justin, his case is indeed weak. 
Tischendorf, however, with his usual temerity, claims 
Justin as a powerful witness for the fourth Gospel. He 
says: “ According to our judgment there are convincing 
grounds of proof for the fact that John also was known 
and used by Justin, provided a prejudiced considera- 
tion of antagonistic predilection against the Johannine 
Gospel be set aside.” In order fully and fairly to state 
the case which he puts forward, we shall quote his 
own words, but in order to avoid repetition we shall 
permit ourselves to interrupt him by remarks and by 
parallel passages from other writings for comparison with 
Justin. Tischendorf says: “The representation of the 
person of Christ altogether peculiar to John as it is 
1 On the Canon, p. 145. In a note Canon Westcott refers to Credner, 
Beitrage, i. p. 253 ff. Credner, however, pronounces against the use of 
the fourth Gospel by Justin. Dr. Westcott adds the singular argument : 
«« Justin’s acquaintance with the Valentinians proves that the Gospel 
could not haye been unknown to him.” (Dial. 35.) We have already 
proved that there is no evidence that Valentinus and his earlier followers 


knew anything of our Synoptics, and we shall presently show that this is 
likewise the case with the fourth Gospel. 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 273 


given particularly in his Prologue i. 1 (“In the beginning 
was the Word and the Word was with God, and God 
was the Word’’), and verse 14 (‘and the word became 
flesh”), in the designation of him as Logos, as the Word 
of God, immediately re-evhoes to not a few passages in 
Justin ; for instance:' ‘And Jesus Christ is alone the 
special Son begotten by God, being his Word and first- 
begotten and power.’ ””” 

With this we may compare another passage of Justin 
from the second Apology. ‘But his son, the alone 
rightly called Son, the Word before the works of creation, 
who was both with him and begotten when in the begin- 
ning he created and ordered all things by him,”* &c. 

Now the same words and ideas are to be found 
throughout the Canonical Epistles and other writings, as 
well as in earlier works. In the Apocalypse,‘ the only 
book of the New Testament mentioned by Justin, and 
which is directly ascribed by him to John,° the term 
Logos is applied to Jesus “ the Lamb,” (xix. 13): “and 
his name is called the Word of God” (kat κέκληται τὸ 


 Tischendorf uses great liberty in translating some of these passages, 
abbreviating and otherwise altering them as it suits him. We shall there- 
fore give his German translation below, and we add the Greek which 
Tischendorf does not quote—indeed he does not, in most cases, even state 
where the passages are to be found. 

2 «Und Jesus Christus ist allein in einzig eigenthiimlicher Weise als 
Sohn Gottes gezeugt worden, indem er das Wort (Logos) desselben ist.” 
Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 32. 

Καὶ Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς μόνος ἰδίως vids τῷ θεῷ υὐδύτηης Λόγος αὐτοῦ ὑπάρχων 
καὶ π᾿ oxos καὶ δύναμις. Apol., i. 23. 

Ὃ δὲ vids ἐκείνου, ὁ μόνος λεγόμενος κυρίως vids, 6 Λόγος πρὸ τῷν ποιημάτων, καὶ 
συνὼν καὶ γεννώμενος, ὅτετὴν ἀρχὴν δι αὐτοῦ πάντα ἔκτισε καὶ ἐκόσμησε. Apol. ii.6. 

* Written 6. A.D. 68—69; Credner, Hinl. N. T., i. p. 104 f.; Beitrige, 
ii. p. 294; Liicke, Comm. Offenb. Joh., 1852, ii. p. 840 ff. ; Hwald, Jahrb. 
bibl. Wiss., 1852—53, p. 182; Gesch. ἃ. V. Isr., vi. p. 643, &c. ke. 

5 Dial., 81. 

VoL, IL = 


274 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ὁ Λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ). Elsewhere (ii. 14) he 
is called “the Beginning of the Creation of God” (ἡ ἀρχὴ 
τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ) ; and again in the same book (i. 5) 
he is “the first-begotten of the dead” (ὁ πρωτότοκος 
τῶν νεκρῶν). In Heb. i 6 he is the “ first-born” 
(πρωτότοκος), as in Coloss. i. 15 he is “ the first-born of 
every creature” (πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως) ; and in 1 
Cor. 1. 24 we have: “Christ the Power of God and the 
Wisdom of God” (Χριστὸν θεοῦ δύναμιν καὶ θεοῦ σοφίαν), 
and it will be remembered that “ Wisdom” was the 
earlier term which became an alternative with “ Word ἢ 
for the intermediate Being. In Heb. 1. 2, God is repre- 
sented as speaking to us “in the Son . . . . by 
whom he also made the worlds” (ἐν υἱῷ, . . . . δὲ οὗ καὶ 
ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας). In 2 Tim. i. 9, he is “ before all 
worlds” (πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων), cf. Heb. 1. 10, 1. 10, 
Rom. xi. 36, 1 Cor. viii. 6, Ephes. ii. 9. 

The works of Philo are filled with similar representa- 
tions of the Logos, but we must restrict ourselves to a 
very few. God as a Shepherd and King governs the 
universe “appointing his true Logos, his first begotten 
Son, to have the care of this sacred flock, as the substi- 
tute of the great King.”' In another place Philo exhorts 
men to strive to become like God’s “first begotten Word” 
(τὸν πρωτόγονον αὐτοῦ Adyov),? and he adds, a few lines 
further on : “ for the most ancient Word is the image of 
God” (θεοῦ yap εἰκὼν Λόγος ὁ πρεσβύτατος).Ἡ The high 
priest of God in the world is “the divine Word his first- 


1 , sy > 5 > a , , cr é ‘ 
. ++ + προστησάμενος τὸν ὀρθὸν αὐτοῦ Λόγον, πρωτόγονον υἱόν, os τὴν 


ἐπιμέλειαν τῆς ἱερᾶς ταύτης ἀγέλης οἷά τις μεγάλου βασιλέως ὕπαρχος διαδέξεται. 
De Agricult., ὃ 12, Mangey, i. 308. 

3 De Confus. ling., ὃ 28, Mang., i. 427, cf. § 14, ib, 1. 414; cf. De 
Migrat. Abrahami, ὃ 1, Mang., i. 437; cf. Heb. i. 3; 2 Cor. iy. 4. 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 275 


begotten son” (6 πρωτόγονος αὐτοῦ θεῖος Adyos).? 
Speaking of the creation of the world Philo says: “ The 
instrument by which it was formed is the Word of God” 
(ὄργανον δὲ Λόγον θεοῦ, δ οὗ κατεσκευάσθη). Else- 
where : ‘For the Word is the image of God by which 
the whole world was created” (Λόγος δέ ἐστιν εἰκὼν 
θεοῦ, δ οὗ σύμπας 6 κόσμος ednuovpyeiro). These 
passages might be indefinitely multiplied. 

Tischendorf’s next passage is: “The first power 
(δύναμις) after the Father of all and God the Lord is the 
Son, the Word (Logos); in what manner having been 
made flesh (σαρκοποιηθεὶς) he became man, we shall in 
what follows relate.” * 

We find everywhere parallels for this passage without 
seeking them in the fourth Gospel. In 1 Cor. 1. 24, 
“Christ the Power (δύναμις) of God and the Wisdom 
of God ;” cf. Heb. 1.2, 3, 4, 6, 8; 1....8..ὄ In Heb i 
14—18, there is a distinct account of his becoming flesh ; 
cf. verse 7. In Phil. ii. 6—8: “Who (Jesus Christ) 
being in the form of God, deemed it not grasping to be 
equal with God, (7) But gave himself up, taking the 
form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men,” 
ἄς. In Rom. viii. 3 we have: ‘God sending his own 
Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin,” ἄς. (ὁ θεὸς 


1 De Somniis, i. ὃ 37, Mang., i. 653. 

2 De Cherubim, ὃ 35, Mang., i. 162. 

3. De Monarchia, ii. ὃ 5, Mang., ii. 225. © 

4 «Die erste Urkraft (δύναμις) nach dem Vater des Alles und Gott 
dem Herrn ist der Sohn, ist das Wort (Logos); wie derselbe durch die 
Fleischwerdung (σαρκοποιηθεὶς) Mensch geworden, das werden wir im 
folgenden darthun.” Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 32. 

Ἡ δὲ πρώτη δύναμις μετὰ τὸν Πατέρα πάντων καὶ Δεσπότην Θεὸν, καὶ vids, ὁ 
Λόγος ἐστίν" ὃς riva τρόπον σαρκοποιηθεὶς ἄνθρωπος γέγονεν, ἐν τοῖς ἑξῆς 
ἐροῦμεν. Apol., i. 32. 

T 2 


276 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


Tov ἑαυτοῦ υἱὸν πέμψας ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας.) 
It must be borne in mind that the terminology of John 
i. 14, “and the word became flesh” (σὰρξ ἐγένετο) is 
different from that of Justin, who uses the word 
σαρκοποιηθεὶς. The sense and language here is, there- 
fore, quite as close as that of the fourth Gospel. We 
have also another parallel in 1 Tim. iii. 16, “ Who (God) 
was manifested in the flesh” (ds ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκῖ), 
cid. Cor χνυ τ 7 

In like manner we find many similar passages in the 
Works of Philo. He says in one place that man was not 
made in the likeness of the most high God the Father of 
the universe, “‘ but in that of the Second God who is his 
Word” (ἀλλα πρὸς τὸν δεύτερον θεόν, ὅς ἐστιν ἐκείνου 
Λόγος). In another place the Logos is said to be the 
interpreter of the highest God, and he continues: “ that 
must be God of us imperfect beings” (Οὗτος yap ἡμῶν 
τῶν ἀτελῶν ἂν εἴη Oeds).2 Elsewhere he says: ‘ But the 
divine Word which is above these (the Winged Cherubim) 
.... but being itself the image of God, the most 
ancient of all intelligent things, and the one placed 
nearest to the only existing God without any separation 
or distance between them” ;* and a few lines further on 
he explains the cities of refuge to be: “The Word of 
the Governor (of all things) and his creative and kingly 
power, for of these are the heavens and the whole 

1 Philo, Fragm. i. ex. Euseb., Preepar. Evang., vii. 13, Mang., ii. 
625; cf. De Somniis, i. ὃ 41, Mang., i. 656; Leg. Alleg., i. § 21, 7b., 
i com Alleg., iii. § 73, Mang., i. 128. 

3 Ὃ δὲ ὑπεράνω τούτων Λόγος θεῖος... .. ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς εἰκὼν ὑπάρχων θεοῦ, 
τῶν νοητῶν ἅπαξ ἁπάντων ὁ πρεσβύτατος, ὁ ἐγγυτάτω, μηδενὸς ὄντος μεθορίου 


διαστήματος, τοῦ μόνου ὅ ἐστιν ἀψευδῶς ἀφιδρυμένοο. De Profugis, § 19, 
Mang., i. 561. 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 277 


world.”* “The Logos of God is above all things in 
the world, and is the most ancient and the most uni- 
versal of all things created.” The Word is also the 
“ Ambassador sent by the Governor (of the universe) to 
his subject (man) ” (πρεσβευτὴς δὲ τοῦ ἡγεμόνος πρὸς 
τὸ ὑπήκοον). 5 Such views of the Logos are everywhere 
met with in the pages of Philo. 

Tischendorf continues: “The word (Logos) of God 
is his Son.”* We have already in the preceding para- 
graphs abundantly illustrated this sentence, and may 
proceed to the next: “ But since they did not know all 
things concerning the Logos, which is Christ, they have 
frequently contradicted each other.”® These words are 
used with reference to Lawgivers and_ philosophers. 
Justin, who frankly admits the delight he took in the 
writings of Plato® and other Greek philosophers, was 
well aware how Socrates and Plato had enunciated the 
doctrine of the Logos,’ although he contends that they 
borrowed it from the writings of Moses, and with a 
largeness of mind very uncommon in the early Church, 
and indeed, we might add, in any age, he held Socrates 
and such philosophers to haye been Christians, even 

1 Ὃ τοῦ ἡγεμόνος Λόγος, καὶ ἡ ποιητικὴ καὶ βασιλικὴ δύναμις αὐτοῦ" τούτων 
γὰρ 6 τε οὐρανὸς καὶ σύμπας ὁ κόσμος ἐστί. -De Profugis, § 19. 

3 Καὶ ὁ Λόγος δὲ τοῦ θεοῦ ὑπεράνω παντός ἐστι τοῦ κόσμου, καὶ πρεσβύτατος 
καὶ γενικώτατος τῶν ὅσα γέγονε. Leg. Alleg., iii. § 61, Mang., 1. 121; οἵ, 
De Somniis, i. § 41, Mang., i. 656. 

3 Quis rerum diy. Heres., ὃ 42, Mang., i. 501. 

4 « Das Wort (Logos) Gottes ist der Sohn desselben.” Wann wurden, 
Ὁ. 85. W., Ρ. 32. 

Ὃ Λόγος δὲ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ. Apol., i. 68. 

5 ἐς Da sie nicht alles was dem Logos, welcher Christus ist, angehort 
erkanuten, so haben sie oft einander widersprechendes gesagt.” 

᾿Ἐπειδὴ δὲ οὐ πάντα τὰ τοῦ Λόγου ἐγνώρισαν, ὅς ἐστι Χριστὸς, καὶ ἐναντία 
ἑαυτοῖς πολλάκις εἶπον. Apol., ii. 10. 


6 Apol., ii. 12 ; cf. Dial., 2 ff. 
7 Apol., i. 60, ἄο., &e. ; of. 5. 


278 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


although they had been considered Atheists.’ As they 
did not of course know Christ to be the Logos, he makes 
the assertion just quoted. Now the only point in the 
passage which requires notice is the identification of the 
Logos with Jesus, which has already been dealt with, 
and as this was asserted in the Apocalypse xix. 13, 
before the fourth Gospel was written, no evidence in its 
favour is deducible from the statement. We shall have 
more to say regarding this presently. 

Tischendorf continues: “But in like manner through 
the Word of God, Jesus Christ our Saviour having been 
made flesh,”? &c. 

It must be apparent that the doctrine here is not that’ 
of the fourth Gospel which makes “the word become 
flesh” simply, whilst Justin, representing a less advanced 
form, and more uncertain stage, of its development, 
draws a distinction between the Logos and Jesus, and 
describes Jesus Christ as being made flesh by the power 
of the Logos. This is no accidental use of words, for he 
repeatedly states the same fact, as for instance: “ But 
why through the power of the Word, according to the 
will of God the Father and Lord of all, he was born a 
man of a Virgin,”® &c. 

Tischendorf continues: “To these passages out of the 
short second Apology we extract from the first (cap. 33).4 


1 Apol., 1. 46. 

2 «“Vermittels des Worts (Logos) Gottes ist Jesus Christus unser Heiland 
Fleisch geworden (capxoroimeis).” Wann wurden, τι. 8. w., p. 32. 

GAN ὅν τρόπον διὰ Λόγου θεοῦ σαρκοποιηθεὶς ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς 6 Σωτὴρ ἡμῶν, 
_ «tA. Apol. i. 66. 

3 AV ἣν δ᾽ αἰτίαν διὰ δυνάμεως τοῦ Λόγου κατὰ τὴν Tod Πατρὸς πάντων καὶ 
δεσπότου Θεοῦ βουλὴν, διὰ παρθένου ἄνθρωπος ἀπεκυήθη, κιτιλ. Apol., i. 46. 

* This is anerror. Several of the preceding passages are out of the 
first Apology. No references, however, are given to the source of any 
of them. We haye added them. 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 279 


By the Spirit, therefore, and power of God (in reference 
to Luke i. 35: ‘The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, 
and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee’) we 
have nothing else to understand but the Logos, which is 
also the first-born of God.”? 

Here again we have the same difference from the 
doctrine of the fourth Gospel which we have just pointed 
out, which is, however, so completely in agreement with 
the views of Philo,? and characteristic of a less developed 
form of the idea. We shall further refer to the termi- 
nology hereafter, and meantime we proceed to the last 
illustration given by Tischendorf. 

“Out of the Dialogue (6. 105): ‘For that he was the 
only-begotten of the Father of all, in peculiar wise 
begotten of him as Word and Power (δύναμις), and 
afterwards became man through the Virgin, as we. have 
learnt from the Memoirs, I have already stated.’ ”* 

The allusion here is to the preceding chapters of the 
Dialogue, wherein, with special reference (6. 100) to the 
passage which has a parallel in Luke i. 35, quoted by 
Tischendorf in the preceding illustration, Justin narrates 
the birth of Jesus. 

1 «Unter dem Geiste nun und der Kraft von Gott (zu Luk. i. 35, ‘der 
heilige Geist wird iiber dich kommen und die Kraft des Héchsten wird 
dich iiberschatten,’) haben wir nichts anders zu verstehen als den Logos, 
welcher der Erstgeborne Gottes ist.”” Wann wurden, u. 8. w., p. 32. 

Τὸ πνεῦμα οὖν καὶ τὴν δύναμιν τὴν παρὰ Tod θεοῦ οὐδὲν ἄλλο νοῆσαι θέμις, ἢ 
τὸν Λόγον, ὃς καὶ πρωτότοκος τῷ θεῷ ἐστι, κατιλ. Apol., i. 33. 

3 Cf. Gfrorer, Gesch. des Urchristenthums, 1835, I. i. pp. 229---248, 

3 Aus dem Dialog (Kap. 105): ‘‘ Dass derselbe dem Vater des Alls 
eingeboren in einziger Weise aus ihm heraus als Wort (Logos) und Kraft 
(δύναμις) gezeugt worden und hernach Mensch vermittels der Jung- 
frau Maria geworden, wie wir aus den Denkwiirdigkeiten gelernt haben, 
das habe ich vorher dargelegt.”” Wann wurden, u. 8. w., p. 32. 

Μονογενὴς yap ὅτι ἦν τῷ Πατρὶ τῶν ὅλων οὗτος, ἰδίως ἐξ αὐτοὺ Λόγος καὶ 
δύναμις γεγενημένος, καὶ ὕστερον ἄνθρωπος διὰ τῆς παρθένου γενόμενος, ὡς ἀπὸ 
τῶν ἀπομνημονευμάτων ἐμάθομεν, προεδήλωσα. Dial. c. Tryph., 105. 


280 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


This reference very appropriately leads us to a more 
general discussion of the real source of the terminology 
and Logos doctrine of Justin. We do not propose, in 
this work, to enter fully into the history of the Logos 
doctrine, and we must confine ourselves strictly to 
showing, in the most simple manner possible, that not 
only is there no evidence whatever that Justin derived 
his ideas regarding it from the fourth Gospel, but that, 
on the contrary, his terminology and doctrine can be 
traced to another source. Now, in the very chapter 
(100) from which this last illustration is taken, Justin 
shows clearly whence he derives the expression : “ only- 
begotten.” In chap. 97 he refers to the Ps. xxii. 
(Sept. xxi.) as a prophecy applying to Jesus, quotes the 
whole Psalm, and comments upon it in the following 
chapters ; refers to Ps. ii. 7: “Thou art my Son, this day 
have I begotten thee,” uttered by the voice at the 
baptism, in ch. 103, in illustration of it; and in ch. 105 
he arrives, in his exposition of it, at Verse 20: “ Deliver 
my soul from the sword, and my! only-begotten 
(μονογενῆ) from the hand of the dog.” Then follows the 
passage we are discussing, in which Justin affirms that 
he has proved that he was the only-begotten (μονογενής) 
of the Father, and at the close he again quotes the verse 
as indicative of his sufferings. The Memoirs are referred 
to in regard to the fulfilment of this prophecy, and his 
birth as man through the Virgin. The phrase in Justin 
is quite different from that in the fourth Gospel, i. 14: 
“ And the Word became flesh (σὰρξ ἐγένετο) and taber- 
nacled among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of 
the only-begotten from the Father” (ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ 
πατρός), &c. In Justin he is “the only-begotten of the 


1 This should probably be “ thy.” 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 281 


Father of all” (μονογενὴς τῷ Πατρὶ τῶν ὅλων), and he 
“became man (ἄνθρωπος γενόμενος) through the 
Virgin,” and Justin never once employs the peculiar 
terminology of the fourth Gospel, σὰρξ ἐγένετο, in any 
part of his writings. 

There can be no doubt that, however the Christian 
doctrine of the Logos may at one period of its develop- 
ment have been influenced by Greek philosophy, it was 
in its central idea mainly of Jewish origin, and the mere 
application to an individual of a theory which had long 
occupied the Hebrew mind. After the original simplicity 
which represented God as holding personal intercourse 
with the Patriarchs, and communing face to face with 
the great leaders of Israel, had been outgrown, an increas- 
ing tendency set in to shroud the Divinity in impene- 
trable mystery, and to regard him as unapproachable 
and undiscernible by man. This led to the recognition 
of a Divine representative and substitute of the Highest 
God and Father, who communicated with his creatures, 
and through whom alone he revealed himself. A new 
system of interpretation of the ancient traditions of the 
nation was rendered necessary, and in the Septuagint 
translation of the Bible we are fortunately able to trace 
the progress of the theory which culminated in the 
Christian doctrine of the Logos. Wherever in the 
sacred records God had been represented as holding 
intercourse with man, the translators either symbolized 
the appearance or interposed an angel, who was after- 
wards understood to be the Divine Word. The first 
name under which the Divine Mediator was known in 
the Old Testament was Wisdom (Σοφία), although in 
its Apocrypha the term Logos was not unknown. The 
personification of the idea was very rapidly effected, and 


282 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


in the Book of Proverbs, as well as in the later 
Apocrypha based upon it: the Wisdom of Solomon, 
and the Wisdom of Sirach: “ Ecclesiasticus,” we find 
it in ever increasing clearness and concretion. In 
the School of Alexandria the active Jewish intellect 
eagerly occupied itself with the speculation, and in the 
writings of Philo especially we find the doctrine of the 
Logos—the term which by that time had almost entirely 
supplanted that of Wisdom—elaborated to almost its final 
point, and wanting little or nothing but its application 
in an incarnate form to an individual man to represent 
the doctrine of the earlier Canonical writings of the New 
Testament, and notably the Epistle to the Hebrews,— 
the work of a Christian Philo,—the Pauline Epistles, 
and lastly the fourth Gospel.? 

In Proverbs viii. 22 ff., we have a representation of 
Wisdom corresponding closely with the prelude to the 
fourth Gospel, and still more so with the doctrine 
enunciated by Justin: 22. “The Lord created me 
the Beginning of his ways for his works. 23. Before 
the ages he established me, in the beginning before he 
made the earth. 24. And before he made the abysses, 
before the springs of the waters issued forth. 25. 
Before the mountains were settled, and before all the 


1 Ewald freely recognises that the author of this Epistle, written 
about A.D. 66, transferred Philo’s doctrine of the Logos to Christianity. 
Apollos, whom he considers its probable author, impregnated the Apostle 
Paul with the doctrine. Gesch. des V. Isr., vi., p. 474 f., p. 638 ff. ; 
Das Sendschr. an ἃ. Hebriier, p. 9 f. 

3 Compare generally Gfrérer, Gesch. des Urchristenthums, i. 1, 1 
und 2 Abth., 1835; Keferstein, Philo’s Lehre vy. ἃ. ρου]. Mittelwesen, 
_ 1846; Vacherot, Hist. crit. de Ecole d’Alexandrie, 1846, i. p. 125 ff. ; 
Delaunay, Philon d’Alexandrie, 1867, i. p. 40 ff.; Franck, La Kabbale, 
1843, p. 269 ff., 293 ff. ; Hilgenfeld, Die Evv. Justin’s, p. 292 ff. ; Niedner, 
Zeitschr. f. hist. Theol., 1849, h. 3, p. 337—381; Liicke, Comm. Evang. 
Joh., i. p. 283 ff. ; cf. p. 210 ff. 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 283 


hills he begets me. 26. God made the country and 
the desert and the highest places which are inhabited 
under the sky. 27. When he prepared the heavens I was 
. present with him, and when he set his throne upon the 
winds, 28, and made strong the high clouds, and the 
deeps under the heaven made secure, 29, and made 
strong the foundations of the earth, 30, I was with 
him adjusting, I was that in which he delighted ; daily 
I rejoiced in his presence at all times.”' In the 
“Wisdom of Solomon” we find the writer addressing 
God: ix. 1... ‘Who hast made all things by thy 
Word” (ὁ ποιήσας τὰ πάντα ἐν Λόγῳ cov) ; and further 
on in the same chapter, v. 9, “And Wisdom was with 
thee who knoweth thy works, and was present when 
thou madest the world, and knew what was acceptable 
in thy sight, and right in thy commandments.”? In 
verse 4, the writer prays: “ Give me Wisdom that sitteth 
by thy throne” (Ads μοι τὴν τῶν σῶν θρόνων πάρεδρον 
σοφίαν). In a similar way the son of Sirach makes 
Wisdom say (Ecclesiast. xxiv. 9): “‘ He (the Most High) 
created me from the beginning before the world, and 
as long as the world I shall not fail.”"* We have already 

1 Proverbs viii. 22. Κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ, 
23. πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐθεμελίωσέ με, ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸ τοῦ τὴν γῆν ποιῆσαι, 24. καὶ 
πρὸ τοῦ τὰς ἀβύσσους ποιῆσαι, πρὸ τοῦ προελθεῖν τὰς πηγὰς τῶν ὑδάτων" 25. 
πρὸ τοῦ ὄρη ἑδρασθῆναι, πρὸ δὲ πάντων βουνῶν, γεννᾷ με. 26. Κύριος ἐποίησε 
χώρας καὶ ἀοικήτους, καὶ ἄκρα οἰκούμενα τῆς ὑπ᾽ οὐρανῶν. 27. Ἡνίκα ἡτοίμαζε 
τὸν οὐρανὸν, συμπαρήμην αὐτῷ, καὶ ὅτε ἀφώριζε τὸν ἑαυτοῦ θρόνον ἐπ᾽ ἀνέμων, 
28. καὶ ὡς ἰσχυρὰ ἐποίει τὰ ἄνω νέφη, καὶ ὡς ἀσφαλεῖς ἐτίθει πηγὰς τῆς ὑπ᾽ 
οὐρανὸν, 29. καὶ ὡς ἰσχυρὰ ἐποίει τὰ θεμέλια τῆς γῆς, 80. ἤμην παρ᾽ αὐτῷ 
dppifovea’ ἐγὼ ἤμην ἧ προσέχαιρε" καθ᾽ ἡμέραν δὲ εὐφραινόμην ἐν προσώπῳ 
αὐτοῦ ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ, κιτιλ, Sept. vers. 

3 Καὶ μετὰ σοῦ ἡ σοφία ἡ εἰδυῖα τὰ ἔργα σου, καὶ παροῦσα ὅτε ἐποίεις τὸν 
κόσμον, καὶ ἐπισταμένη τί ἀρεστὸν ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς σου, καὶ τί εὐθὲς ἐν ἐντολαῖς σου- 
Wisdom of Solom., ix. 9. * 3 Of. ch. vili.—xi. 

4 Πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος an’ ἀρχῆς ἔκτισέ με, καὶ ἕως αἰῶνος ov μὴ ἐκλίπω. Eccle- 
siastic. xxiv. 9. 


284 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


incidentally seen how these thoughts grew into an 
elaborate doctrine of the Logos in the works of Philo. 

Now Justin, whilst he nowhere adopts the terminology 
of the fourth Gospel, and nowhere refers to its intro- 
ductory condensed statement of the Logos doctrine, 
closely follows Philo and, like him, traces it back to 
the Old Testament in the most direct way, accounting 
for the interposition of the divine Mediator in precisely 
the same manner as Philo, and expressing the views 
which had led the Seventy to modify the statement of 
the Hebrew original in their Greek translation. He is, in 
fact, thoroughly acquainted with the history of the Logos 
doctrine and its earlier enunciation under the symbol of 
Wisdom, and his knowledge of it is clearly independent 
of, and antecedent to, the statements of the fourth 
Gospel. 

Referring to various episodes of the Old Testament in 
which God is represented as appearing to Moses and the 
Patriarchs, and in which it is said that “God went up 
from Abraham,”? or “The Lord spake to Moses,” ? or “ The 
Lord came down to behold the town,” &c.,2 or “ God 
shut Noah into the ark,’* and so on, Justin warns his 
antagonist that he is not to suppose that “ the unbegotten 
God” (ἀγέννητος θεός) did any of these things, for he 
has neither to come to any place, nor walks, but from 
his own place, wherever it may be, knows everything 
although he has neither eyes nor ears. Therefore he 
could not talk with anyone, nor be seen by anyone, 
and none of the Patriarchs saw the Father at all, but 
they saw “him who was according to his will both his 
Son (being God) and the Angel, in that he ministered to 


1 Gen. xviii. 22. 2 Exod. vi. 29. 
3 Gen. xi. 5. 4 Gen. yii. 16. 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 285 


his purpose, whom also he willed to be born man by the 
Virgin, who became fire when he spoke with Moses from 
the bush.”? He refers throughout his writings to the 
various appearances of God to the Patriarchs, all of 
which he ascribes to the pre-existent Jesus, the Word,? 
and in the very next chapter, after alluding to some of 
these, he says: ‘he is called Angel because he came 
to men, since by him the decrees of the Father are 
announced to men... At other times he is also called 
Man and human being, because he appears in such forms 
as the Father wills, and they call him Logos because he 
bears the communications of the Father to mankind.”$ 
Justin, moreover, repeatedly refers to the fact that he 
was called Wisdom by Solomon, and quotes the passage 
we have indicated in Proverbs. In one place he says, in 
proof of his assertion that the God who appeared to 
Moses and the Patriarchs was distinguished from the 
Father, and was in fact the Word (ch. 66—70): ‘ Ano- 


1 ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖνον τὸν κατὰ βουλὴν τὴν ἐκείνου καὶ θεὸν ὄντα υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἄγγελον 
ἐκ τοῦ ὑπηρετεῖν τῇ γνώμῃ αὐτοῦ" ὃν καὶ ἄνθρωπον γεννηθῆναι διὰ τῆς παρθένου 
βεβούληται" ὃς καὶ πῦρ ποτε γέγονε τῇ πρὸς Μωῦσέα ὁμιλίᾳ τῇ ἀπὸ τῆς βάτου. 
Dial. 127; cf. 128, 68 ; ef. Philo, De Somniis, i. §§ 11 f., Mang., i. 680 f. ; 
§ 31. i, i 648; §§ 33 ff, 2b, i. 649 Mh; §§ 39 ff, ob, i. 655 Κ΄. 
Nothing in fact could show more clearly the indebtedness of Justin to 
Philo than this argument (Dial. 100) regarding the inapplicability of such 
descriptions to the ‘‘ unbegotten God.” Philo in one treatise from which 
we are constantly obliged to take passages as parallels for those of Justin 
(de Confusione linguarum) argues from the very same text: ‘‘ The Lord 
went down to see that city and tower,” almost in the very same words as 
Justin, §27. The passage is unfortunately too long for quotation. 

2 Dial. 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 126, 127, 128, &c., &c. ; Apol., i. 62, 63; cf. 
Philo, Vita Mosis, §§ 12 ff., Mangey, i. 91 ff.; Leg. Alleg., iii. §§ 25 ff., 
ib., i. 103 f., &., &e. 

3... ἴΆγγελον καλεῖσθαι ἐν τῇ πρὸς ἀνθρώπους προόδῳ, ἐπειδὴ SC αὐτῆς τὰ 
παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἀγγέλλεται"... . ἄνδρα δέ ποτε καὶ ἄνθρωπον 
καλεῖσθαι, ἐπειδὴ ἐν μορφαῖς τοιαύταις σχηματιζόμενος φαίνεται, αἷσπερ βούλεται 
6 Πατήρ᾽ καὶ Λόγον καλοῦσιν, ἐπειδὴ καὶ τὰς παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς ὁμιλίας φέρει τοῖς 


ἀνθρώποις. Dial. 128; οὗ, ΑΡο]. i. 63; Dial. 60. 


286 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


ther testimony I will give you, my friends, I said, from 
the Scriptures that God begat before all of the creatures 
(πρὸ πάντων τῶν κτισμάτων) a Beginning (dpy7jv),) a 
certain rational Power (δύναμιν λογικὴν) out of himself, 
who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the 
Lord, then the Son, again Wisdom, again Angel, again 
God, and again Lord and Logos;” &c., and a little 
further on: “The Word of Wisdom will testify to me, 
who is himself this God begotten. of the Father of the 
universe, and Word, and Wisdom, and Power (δύναμις), 
and being the Glory of the Begetter,’ &c.,? and he 
quotes, from the Septuagint version, Proverbs viii. 
22—36, part of which we have given above, and indeed, 
elsewhere (ch. 129), he quotes the passage a second time 
as evidence, with a similar context. Justin refers to it 
again in the next chapter, and the peculiarity of his 
terminology in all these passages, so markedly different 
and indeed opposed to that of the fourth Gospel, will 
naturally strike the reader : “But this offspring (γέννημα) 
being truly brought forth by the Father was with the 
Father before all created beings (πρὸ πάντων τῶν ποιη- 
μάτων), and the Father communed with him, as the 
Logos has declared through Solomon, that also a Begin- 
ning (ἀρχή) before all of the created beings (πρὸ πάντων 
τῶν ποιημάτων) was begotten, the offspring (γέννημα) of 
the Father, who is called Wisdom by Solomon,” &c.* 


1 Cf. Apoc., iii. 14. 

2 Μαρτύριον δὲ καὶ ἄλλο ὑμῖν, ὦ φίλοι, ἔφην, ἀπὸ τῶν γραφῶν δώσω, ὅτι 
Αρχὴν πρὸ πάντων τῶν κτισμάτων 6 Θεὸς γεγέννηκε δύναμίν τινα ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ 
λογικὴν, ἥτις καὶ Δόξα Κυρίου ὑπὸ τοῦ Πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου καλεῖται, ποτὲ δὲ Υἱὸς, 
ποτὲ δὲ Σοφία, ποτὲ δὲ ”Ayyedos, ποτὲ δὲ Θεὸς, ποτὲ δὲ Κύριος καὶ Λόγος". .. 

Μαρτυρήσει δέ μοι ὃ λόγος τῆς σοφίας, αὐτὸς ὧν οὗτος ὁ Θεὸς ἀπὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς 
τῶν ὅλων γεννηθεὶς, καὶ Λόγος, καὶ Σοφία, καὶ Δύναμις, καὶ Δόξα τοῦ γεννήσαντος 
ὑπάρχων, κιτιλ. Dial. 61. 

3 ᾿Αλλὰ τοῦτο τὸ τῷ ὄντι ἀπὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς προβληθὲν γέννημα, πρὸ πάντων τῶν 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 287 


In another place after quoting the words: “No man 
knoweth the Father but the Son, nor the Son but the 
Father, and they to whom the Son will reveal him,” 
Justin continues: “Therefore he revealed to us all that 
we have by his grace understood out of the Scriptures, 
recognizing him to be indeed: the first-begotten (πρωτό- 
τοκος) of God, and before all of the creatures (πρὸ πάντων 
τῶν κτισμάτων) .... and calling him Son, we have 
recognized that he proceeded from the Father by his 
power and will before all created beings (πρὸ πάντων 
ποιημάτων), for in one form or another he is spoken of 
in the writings of the prophets as Wisdom,” &c. : and 
again, in two other places he refers to the same fact.? 

On further examination, we find on every side still 
stronger confirmation of the conclusion that Justin 
derived his Logos doctrine from the Old Testament and 
Philo, together with early New Testament writings. 
We have quoted several passages in which Justin details 
the various names of the Logos, and we may add one 
more. Referring to Ps. Ixxii., which the Jews apply to 
Solomon, but which Justin maintains to be applicable to 
Christ, he says: “ For Christ is King, and Priest, and 
God, and Lord, and Angel, and Man, and Captain, and 
Stone, and a Son born (παιδίον γεννώμενον), &c. &e., as 1 
prove by all of the Scriptures.”* Now these representa- 
ποιημάτων συνῆν τῷ Πατρὶ, καὶ τούτῳ ὁ Πατὴρ προσομιλεῖ, ὡς 6 Λόγος διὰ τοῦ 
Σολομῶνος ἐδήλωσεν, ὅτι καὶ ᾿Αρχὴ πρὸ πάντων τῶν ποιημάτων τοῦτ᾽ αὐτὸ καὶ 
ὙΡΉΜΕ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐγεγέννητο, ὃ Σοφία διὰ Σολομῶνος καλεῖται, x.7.d. 


> > - ΄“ “ - - 
1 ᾿Απεκάλυψεν οὖν ἡμῖν πάντα ὅσα καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν γραφῶν διὰ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ 

, ~ ~ col 
νενοήκαμεν, γνόντες αὐτὸν πρωτότοκον μὲν τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ mpd πάντων τῶν 


κτισμάτων"... . καὶ Ὑἱὸν αὐτὸν λέγοντες, νενοήκαμεν, καὶ πρὸ πάντων ποιη- 
μάτων, ἀπὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς δυνάμει αὐτοῦ καὶ βουλῇ προελθόντα ὃς καὶ Σοφία, κιτ.λ. 
Dial. 100. 3 Dial., 126, 129. 


3 Ὃ γὰρ Χριστὸς Βασιλεὺς, καὶ Ἱερεὺς, καὶ Θεὸς, καὶ Κύριος, καὶ ἔΆγγελος, καὶ 
ἔΛνθρωπος, καὶ ᾿Αρχιστράτηγος, καὶ Λίθος, καὶ Παιδίον γεννώμενον, κιτιλ. Dial. 84. 


288 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


tions, which are constantly repeated throughout Justin’s 
writings, are quite opposed to the Spirit of the fourth 
Gospel, but are on the other hand equally common in the 
works of Philo, and many of them also to be found in 
the Philonian Epistle to the Hebrews. Taking the chief 
amongst them we may briefly illustrate them. The 
Logos as King, Justin avowedly derives from the Ps. 
lxxii., in which he finds that reference is made to the 
« Everlasting King, that is tosay Christ.”? We find this 
representation of the Logos throughout the writings of 
Philo. In one place already briefly referred to,? but 
which we shall now more fully quote, he says: “ For God 
as Shepherd and King governs according to Law and 
justice like a flock of sheep, the earth, and water, and 
air, and fire, and all the plants and living things that 
are in them, whether they be mortal or divine, as well as 
the course of heaven, and the periods of sun and moon, 
and the variations and harmonious revolutions of the 
other stars; appointing his true Word (τὸν ὀρθὸν αὑτοῦ 
Λόγον) his first-begotten Son (πρωτόγονον υἱόν) to have 
the care of this sacred flock as the substitute of the great 
King ;”* and a little further on, he says: “very reason- 
ably, therefore, he will assume the name of a King, being 
addressed as a Shepherd.”* In another place, Philo 
speaks of the “Logos, governor of the world, and his 
1 Dial., 34. 2 Ὁ. 274. 


3 καθάπερ γάρ τινα ποίμνην γῆν καὶ ὕδωρ καὶ ἀέρα καὶ πῦρ καὶ ὅσα ἐν τούτοις 
σελήνης περιόδους καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἀστέρων τροπάς τε αὖ καὶ χορείας ἐναρμονίους 
ὡς ποιμὴν καὶ Βασιλεὺς ὁ θεὸς ἄγει κατὰ δίκην καὶ νόμον, προστησάμενος τὸν 
ὀρθὸν αὑτοῦ Λόγον, πρωτόγονον υἱόν, ὃς τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν τῆς ἱερᾶς ταύτης ἀγέλης 
οἷά τις μεγάλου βασιλέως ὕπαρχος διαδέξεται. De Agricult., § 12, Mangey, 
1. 808. 

4 Eixéres τοίνυν 6 μὲν βασιλέως ὄνομα ὑποδύσεται, ποιμὴν προσαγορευθείς, 
κτλ. § 14, cf. De Profugis, § 20, Mang., i. 562; De Somniis, ii. § 37, 
Mang., i. 691. 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 289 


creative and kingly power, for by them the heaven and 
the whole world were made.” Ὁ 

Then if we take the second epithet, the Logos as 
Priest (ἱερεύς), which is quite foreign to the fourth Gos- 
pel, we find it repeated by Justin, as for instance: 
“Christ the eternal Priest” (éepevs),? and it is not only 
a favourite representation of Philo, but is almost the 
leading idea of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in connection 
with the episode of Melchisedec, in whom also both 
Philo,* and Justin,* recognize the Logos. In the Epistle 
to the Hebrews, vil. 3, speaking of Melchisedec: “ but 
likened to the Son of God, abideth a Priest for ever :”5 
again iniv. 14: ““ Seeing then that we have a great High 
Priest that is passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son 
of God,” &c. ;° ix. 11: “ Christ having appeared a High 
Priest of the good things to come ;”? xii. 21: “ Thou art 
a Priest for ever.”® The passages are indeed far too 
numerous to quote.? They are equally numerous in the 
writings of Philo. In one place already quoted,’ he says : 
“or there are as it seems two temples of God, one of 
which is the world, in which the High Priest is the 
divine Word, the first-begotten Son of God” (Avo yap, 


1 Ὃ rod ἡγεμόνος Λόγος, καὶ ἡ ποιητικὴ καὶ βασιλικὴ δύναμις αὐτοῦ: τούτων 
γὰρ ὅ τε οὐρανὸς καὶ σύμπας ὁ κόσμος ἐστί. De Profugis, ὃ 19, Mang., i. 
561; cf. de ΜΙρταῦ. Abrahami, ὃ 1, Mang., i. 437. 

2 Dial., 42. 5 Legis Alleg., ὃ 26, Mang., i. 104, &., &e. 

4 Dial., 34, 83, ἄο., &e. : 

5... . ἀφομοιωμένος δὲ τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ θεοῦ, μένει ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸ διηνεκές. 
Heb. vii. 3. 

δ Ἔχοντες οὖν ἀρχιερέα μέγαν διεληλυθότα τοὺς οὐρανούς, Ἰησοῦν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ 
θεοῦ, κι. Heb. iv. 14. ᾿ 

7 Χριστὸς δὲ παραγενόμενος ἀρχιερεὺς τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν, κιτιλ. Heb. 
rb igs 

8: Σὺ ἱερεὺς eis τὸν αἰῶνα. Heb. vii. 21. 

® Heb. vii. 11, 15, 17, 21 f., 26 ff. ; viii. 1 ff. 5 ii. 6..17; v. 5, 6, 10. 

0 p. 274, 

VOL, IL U 


290 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


ὡς ἔοικεν, ἱερὰ θεοῦ, ἕν μὲν ὅδε ὃ κόσμος, ἐν ᾧ καὶ ἀρχιε- 
ρεύς, ὁ πρωτόγονος αὐτοῦ θεῖος Λόγος). Elsewhere, 
speaking of the period for the return of fugitives, the 
death of the high priest, which taken literally would 
embarrass him in his allegory, Philo says: “For we 
maintain the High Priest not to be a man, but the divine 
Word, who is not only without participation in voluntary 
but also free from involuntary sins ;”? and he goes on to 
speak of this priest as “the most sacred Word” (ὁ ἱερώ- 
τατος Λόγος) 3 Indeed, in many long passages he 
descants upon the “high priest Word” (ὁ ἀρχιερεύς 
Adyos).* 

Proceeding to the next representations of the Logos 
as ‘God and Lord,” we meet with the idea everywhere, 
In Hebrews 1. 8 : “ But regarding the Son he saith : Thy 
throne, Ὁ God, is for ever and ever” (πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν 
‘O θρόνος σου, 6 Θεός, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος), &c., 
and again in the Epistle to the Philippians, u. 6, 
“Who (Jesus Christ) being in the form of God, 
deemed it not grasping to be equal with God” 
(ds ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ 
εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ), ἄς. &c.® Philo, in the fragment preserved 
by Eusebius, to which we have already referred,® calls the 
Logos the “Second God ” (δεύτερος θεός). 7 In another 


1 Philo, De Somniis, i. § 37, Mangey, 1 1. 653. 

5 Λέγομεν γάρ, τὸν ἀρχιερέα. οὐκ ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλὰ ᾿Δόγον θεῖον εἶναι, πάντων 
οὐχ ἑκουσίων μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀκουσίων ἀδικημάτων ἀμέτοχον. De Profugis, 
§ 20, Mang., i. 562. Philo continues: that this priest, the Logos, must 
be pure, ‘‘ God indeed being his Father, who is also the Father of all 
things, and Wisdom his mother, by whom the universe came into being.” 
(πατρός μὲν θεοῦ, ὃς καὶ τῶν συμπάντων ἐστὶ πατήρ, μητρὸς δὲ Σοφίας, δι᾿ ἧς 
τὰ ὅλα ἦλθεν εἰς γένεσιν.) 

8 70.,321. 4 De Migrat. Abrahami, § 18, Fass 1. 452. 

5. Cf verse 11. * p. 276. 

. 7 Fragm.i., Mang., ii. 625; cf. Leg. Alleg., ii. § 21, Mang., i. 83. 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 291 


passage he has: “ But what he here calls God is his most 
ancient Word,” &c. (καλεῖ δὲ θεὸν τὸν πρεσβύτατον αὐτοῦ 
νυνὶ Λόγον) :} and a little further on, speaking of the in- 
ability of men to look on the Father himself: “thus they 
regard the image of God, his Angel Word, as himself” 
(οὕτως καὶ τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ εἰκόνα, τὸν ἄγγελον αὐτοῦ Λόγον, 
ὡς αὐτὸν κατανοοῦσιν).32 Elsewhere discussing the pos- 
sibility of God’s swearing by himself, which he applies to 
the Logos, he says: “For that must be God of us 
imperfect beings, but the first God of wise and perfect 
men. And Moses, adoring the superiority of the unbe- 
gotten (ἀγεννήτου) God, says: ‘ And thou shalt swear by 
his name,’ not by himself; for it is sufficient for the 
creature to receive assurance and testimony from the 
Word of God.” 

It is certain, however, that both Justin and Philo, 
unlike the prelude to the fourth Gospel i. 1, place the 
Logos in a secondary position to God the Father, another 
point indicating a less advanced stage of the doctrine. 
Both Justin and Philo apply the term θεός to the Logos 
without the article. Justin distinctly says that Christians 
worship Jesus Christ as the Son of the true God, holding 
him in the second place (ἐν δευτέρᾳ χώρᾳ ἔχοντες), and 
this secondary position is systematically defined through 
Justin’s writings in a very decided way, as it is in the 
works of Philo by the contrast of the begotten Logos 
with the unbegotten God. Justin speaks of the Word 

1 Philo, De Somniis, i. 39, Mang., i. 655. 

2 De Somniis, i. ὃ 41, Mang., i. 656. : 

3 Οὗτος γὰρ ἡμῶν τῶν ἀτελῶν ἂν εἴη θεός, τῶν δὲ σοφῶν καὶ τελείων ὃ πρῶτος. 
Kal Μωῦσῆς μέντοι τὴν ὑπερβολὴν θαυμάσας τοῦ ἀγεννήτου φησίν: “Καὶ τῷ 
ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ ὀμῇ,᾽" οὐχὶ αὐτῷ" ἱκανὸν γὰρ τῷ γεννητᾷ πιστοῦσθαι καὶ μαρτυρεῖσθαι 
Λόγῳ θείῳ. Leg. Alleg., iii. § 18, Mang., i. 129. 


* Apol., i. 13, cf. 60, where he shows that Plato gives the second place 
to the Logos. 


U2 


292 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


as “the first-born of the unbegotten God” (πρωτότοκος 
τῷ ἀγεννήτῳ θεῷ), and the distinctive appellation of 
the “unbegotten God” applied to the Father is most 
common throughout his writings? We may in con- 
tinuation of this remark point out another phrase of 
Justin which is continually repeated, but is thoroughly 
opposed both to the spirit and to the terminology of the 
fourth Gospel, and which likewise indicates the secondary 
consideration in which he held the Logos. He calls the 
Word constantly “the first-born of all created beings” 
(πρωτότοκος τῶν πάντων ποιημάτων, OL πρωτότοκος πρὸ 
πάντων τῶν κτισμάτων, OL πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως," 
‘the first-born of all creatures,” echoing the expression 
of Col. i. 15. (The Son) ‘‘ who is the image of the invi- 
sible God, the first-born of all creatures” (πρωτότοκος 
πάσης κτίσεως). This is a totally different view from 
that of the fourth Gospel, which in so emphatic a manner 
enunciates the doctrine: “In the beginning was the 
Word and the Word was with God, and God was the 
Word,” a statement which Justin, with Philo, only makes 
in a very modified sense. 

To return, however, the next representation of the 
Logos by Justin is as “ Angel.” This perpetually recurs 
in his writings. In one place, to which we have already 
referred, he says: ‘“‘ The Word of God is his Son, as we 
have already stated, and he is also called Angel and 
Apostle, for he declares whatever we ought to know, and 
is sent to declare whatever is disclosed.””’ In the same 


1 Apol., 1. 53, compare quotation from Philo, p. 291, note 2. 

2 Apol., i. 49, Apol., τ. 6, 13; Dial., 126, 127. 

3 Dial., 62, 84, 100, &c., &c. 

4 Dial., 61, 100, 125, 129, ἄο., &e. 5 Dial., 85, 138, &c. 
6 Apol., i. 63; Dial., 34, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 127; cf. Apol., i. 6. 


7 Ὃ Λόγος δὲ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν ὁ vids αὐτοῦ, ὡς προέφημεν' καὶ ΓΑγγελος δὲ 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 293 


chapter reference is again made to passages quoted for 
the sake of proving: “that Jesus Christ is the Son and 
Apostle of God, being first the Word and appearing 
sometimes in the form of fire, and sometimes in incorpo- 
real shapes ;”" and he gives many illustrations.? The 
passages, however, in which the Logos is called Angel, 
are too numerous to be more fully dealt with here. It is 
scarcely necessary to point out that this representation of 
the Logos as Angel, is not only foreign to, but opposed 
to the spirit of, the fourth Gospel, although it is 
thoroughly in harmony with the writings of Philo. 
Before illustrating this, however, we may incidentally 
remark that the ascription to the Logos of the name 
“ Apostle” which occurs in the two passages just quoted 
above, as well as in other parts of the writings of Justin,3 
is likewise opposed to the fourth Gospel, although it is 
found in earlier writings, exhibiting a less developed form 
of the Logos doctrine ; for the Epistle to the Hebrews 
ii. 1, has: ‘‘ Consider the Apostle and High Priest of our 
confession, Jesus,” ἄς. (κατανοήσατε τὸν ἀπόστολον Kat 
ἀρχιερέα τῆς ὁμολογίας ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν). We are, in 
fact, constantly directed by the remarks of Justin to other 
sources of the Logos doctrine, and never to the fourth 
Gospel, with which his tone and terminology in no way 
agree. Everywhere in the writings of Philo we meet 
with the Logos as Angel. He speaks “of the Angel 
Word of God” in a sentence already quoted,* and else- 
where in a passage, one of many others, upon which the 


καλεῖται, καὶ ᾿Απόστολος. Αὐτὸς γάρ ἀπαγγέλλει ὅσα δεῖ γνωσθῆναι, καὶ ἀποστέλ- 
λεται μηνύσων ὅσα ἀγγέλλεται, κιτιλ. Apol., 1. 63. 

1 ὅτι υἱὸς θεοῦ καὶ ᾿Απόστολος ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ Χριστός ἐστι, πρότερον Λόγος ὧν, καὶ 
ἐν ἰδέᾳ πυρὸς ποτὲ φανεὶς, ποτὲ δὲ καὶ ἐν εἰκόνι ἀσωμάτων, κιτιλ. Apol., i. 63. 

2 Cf. Dial., 56—60, 127, 128. ® Apol., 1. 12, &. 

4 Philo, De Somniis, 1. ὃ 41, Mang., i. 656, see p. 291. 


29-4 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


lines of Justin which we are now considering (as well as 
several similar passages)’ are in all probability moulded. 
Philo calls upon men to “ strive earnestly to be fashioned 
according to God’s first-begotten Word, the eldest Angel, 
who is the Archangel bearing many names, for he is called 
the Beginning (ἀρχή), and Name of God, and Logos, and 
the Man according to his image, and the Seer of Israel.? 
Elsewhere, in a remarkable passage, he says: “ΤῸ his 
Archangel and eldest Word, the Father, who created the 
universe, has given the supreme gift that he should stand 
on the confines separating the creature from the Creator, 
and this Word is for ever an intercessor before the 
immortal God for mortal man who is in affliction ; he is 
also the ambassador of the Ruler to his subjects. And 
he rejoices in the gift, and the majesty of it he describes, 
saying: ‘And I stood in the midst between the Lord 


1 For instance, in the quotations at p. 286 f. from Dial. 61, and also that 
from Dial. 62,in which the Logos is also called the Beginning (ἀρχή). 
Both Philo and Justin, no doubt, had in mind Proy. viii. 22. In Dial. 
100, for example, there is a passage, part of which we have quoted, which 
reads as follows: ‘‘for in one form or another he is spoken of in the 
writings of the prophets as Wisdom, and the Day, and the East, and a 
Sword, and a Stone, and a Rod, and Jacob, and Israel, &e.”” Now in the 
writings of Philo these passages in the Old Testament are discussed, and 
applied to the Logos, and one in particular we may refer to as an illus- 
tration. Philo says: “1 have also heard of a certain associate of Moses 
haying pronounced the following saying: ‘Behold a man whose name is 
the East.’ (Zech. vi. 12.) A most novel designation if you consider it to 
be spoken regarding one composed of body and soul, but if regarding that 
incorporeal Being who does not differ from the divine image, you will 
agree that the name ofthe East is perfectly appropriate to him. For in- 
deed the Father of the Universe has caused this eldest son (πρεσβύτατον 
υἱὸν) to rise (ἀνέτειλε), whom elsewhere he names his first-begotten 
(πρωτόγονον), &c.” De Confus. Ling., § 14. Can it be doubted that Justin 
_ follows Philo in such exegesis ἢ 
2... . σπουδαζέτω κοσμεῖσθαι κατὰ τὸν πρωτόγονον αὐτοῦ Λόγον, τὸν ἄγγελον 
πρεσβύτατον, ὡς ἀρχάγγελον πολυώνυμον ὑπάρχοντα": καὶ γὰρ ἀρχή, καὶ ὄνομα 
θεοῦ, καὶ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ κατ᾽ εἰκόνα ἄνθρωπος, καὶ ὁρῶν ᾿Ισραὴλ προσαγορεΐεται. 
De Confus. Ling., ὃ 28, Mang., i. 427; cf. De Migrat. Abrahami, ὃ 31, 
Mang., i. 463. 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 295, 


and you’ (Numbers xvi. 48). For he was neither unbe- 
gotten like God, nor begotten like you, but between the 
two extremes,” &c.1 We have been tempted to give more 
of this passage than is necessary for our immediate pur- 
pose, because it affords the reader another glimpse of 
Philo’s doctrine of the Logos, and generally illustrates 
its position in connection with the Christian doctrine. 
The last of Justin’s names which we shall here notice 
is the Logos as ‘‘ Man” as well as God. In another 
place Justin explains that he is sometimes called a Man 
and human being, because he appears in such forms as 
the Father wills.? But here confining ourselves merely 
to the concrete idea, we find a striking representation of 
it in 1 Tim. i. 5: “For there is one God and one 
mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus” 
(εἷς γὰρ θεός, εἷς Kai μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, 
ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς) ; and again in Rom. v. 15: 
“ νος by the grace of the one man Christ Jesus” 
(rod ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ), as well as other 
passages.2 We have already seen in the passage quoted 
above from “ De Confus. Ling.” § 28, that Philo mentions, 
among the many names of the Logos, that of “the Man 
according to God’s image” (ὁ κατ᾽ εἰκόνα ἄνθρωπος," 
or “the typical man”). If, however, we pass to the 


1 Τῷ δὲ ἀρχαγγέλῳ καὶ πρεσϑυτάτῳ Λόγῳ δωρεὰν ἐξαίρετον ἔδωκεν ὁ τὰ ὅλα 
γεννήσας πατήρ, ἵνα μεθόριος στὰς τὸ γενόμένον διακρίνῃ τοῦ πεποιηκότος. Ὃ δ᾽ 
αὐτὸς ἱκέτης μέν ἐστι τοῦ θνητοῖ κηραίνοντος ἀεὶ πρὸς τὸ ἄφθαρτον, πρεσβευτὴς 
δὲ τοῦ ἡγεμόνος πρὸς τὸ ὑπήκοον. Αγάλλεται δὲ ἐπὶ τῇ δωρεᾷ, καὶ σεμνυνόμενος 
αὐτὴν ἐκδιηγεῖται φάσκων" “Και ἐγὼ εἱστήκειν ἀνὰ μέσον κυρίου καὶ ὑμῶν 
(Num. xvi. 48), οὔτε ἀγέννητος ὡς 6 θεὸς ὦν, οὔτε γεννητὸς ὡς ὑμεῖς, ἀλλὰ 
μέσος τῶν ἄκρων, κιατιλ. Quis rerum diy. Heres., ὃ 42, Mang., i. 501 f. 

2 Dial., 128, see the quotation, p. 285. 

8 Phil. ii. 8; 1 Cor. xy. 47. 

4 Elsewhere Philo says that the Word was the archetypal model after 
which man and the human mind were formed. De Exsecrat., ὃ 8, Many., 
i. 486; De Mundi Opificio, §6, Mang., i. 6. 


296 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


application of the Logos doctrine to Jesus, we have the 
strongest reason for concluding Justin’s total indepen- 
dence from the fourth Gospel. We have already pointed 
out that the title of Logos is given to Jesus in New Tes- 
tament writings earlier than the fourth Gospel, and we 
must see that Justin’s terminology, as well as his views of 
the Word become man, is thoroughly different from that 
Gospel. We have remarked that, although the passages 
are innumerable in which Justin speaks of the Word 
having become man through the Virgin, he never once 
throughout his writings makes use of the peculiar expres- 
sion of the fourth Gospel: ‘‘the Word became flesh ” 
(ὁ Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο). On the few occasions on which 
he speaks of the Word having been made flesh, he uses 
the term σαρκοποιηθεὶς. In one instance he has σάρκα 
eyew,” and speaking of the Kucharist Justin once explains 
that it is in memory of Christ’s being made Jody, 
σωματοποιήσασθαιδ Justin's most common phrase, 
however, and he repeats it in numberless instances, is 
that the Logos submitted to be born, and become man 
(γεννηθῆναι ἄνθρωπον γενόμενον ὑπέμεινεν), by a Virgin, 
or he uses variously the expressions: ἄνθρωπος γέγονε, 
ἄνθρωπος γενόμενος, γενέσθαι ἄνθρωπον. In several 
places he speaks of him as the first production or off- 
spring (γέννημα) of God before all created beings, as, for 
instance: ‘The Logos . . . who is the first offspring 
of God” (6 ἐστι πρῶτον γέννημα Tod θεοῦ) ;° and again, 
‘‘and that: this offspring was really begotten of the 
Father before all of the creatures Scripture declares” 
(καὶ ὅτι γεγεννῆσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦτο TO γέννημα 
1 Apol., i. 66 (twice); Dial., 45, 100. 
2 Dial., 48. 3 Dial., 70. 


4 Apol., i. 5, 28, 63; Apol., 11. 6,13; Dial., 34, 45, 48, 57, 63, 75, 84, 
85, 105, 1132 125, 127, &e., &e. ® Apol., i. 21. 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 297 


πρὸ πάντων ἁπλῶς τῶν κτισμάτων ὃ λόγος ἐδήλου)." 
We need not say more of the expressions : “ first-born ἢ 
(πρωτότοκος), “ first-begotten” ( πρωτόγονος), so con- 
stantly applied to the Logos by Justin, in agreement 
with Philo; nor to “only begotten” (μονογενὴς), 
directly derived from the Ps. xxii. 20 (Ps. xxi. 20, 
Sept.). 

It must be apparent to everyone who seriously examines 
the subject, that Justin’s terminology is thoroughly dif- 
ferent from, and in spirit opposed to, that of the fourth 
Gospel, and in fact that the peculiarities of the Gospel 
are not found in Justin’s writings at all? On the other 
hand, his doctrine of the Logos is precisely that of Philo,* 


1 Dial., 129. cf. 62. 

2 A passage is sometimes quoted in which Justin reproaches the ie ews 
for spreading injurious and unjust reports ‘‘ concerning the only blame- 
less and righteous Light sent by God to man,” (Κατὰ οὖν rod μόνου ἀμώμου 
καὶ δικαίου φωτὸς τοῖς ἀνθρώποις πεμφθέντος παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ κιτιλ. Dial. 17), 
and this is claimed as an echo of the Gospel; cf. John i. 9, viii. 12, 
xii. 46, &c. Now here again we have in Philo the elaborate repre- 
sentation of the Logos as the sun and Light of the world; as for 
instance in a long passage in the treatise De Somniis, i. §§ 13 ff., Mang., 
i. 631 ff., of which we can only give the slightest quotation. Philo argues 
that Moses only speaks of the sun by symbols, and that it is easy to prove 
this; ‘‘ since God is the first Light. ‘For the Lord is my Light and my 
Saviour,’ it is said in the Psalms (xxvi. 1), and not only Light, but the 
archetype of all other lights, indeed much more ancient and more perfect 
than the archetype, being termed the model. For indeed the model was his 
most perfect Word, the Light,” ἄο. (... . ἐπειδὴ πρῶτον μὲν ὁ θεὸς φῶς 
ἐστι: “ Κύριος yap φῶς μου καὶ σωτήρ pou” ἐν ὕμνοις ᾷδεται. Καὶ οὐ μόνον 
φῶς, ἀλλὰ καὶ παντὸς ἑτέρου φωτὸς ἀρχέτυπον, μᾶλλον δὲ ἀρχετύπου πρεσβύτερον 
καὶ ἀνώτερον, Λόγον ἔχον παραδείγματος: τὸ μὲν γὰρ παράδειγμα ὃ πληρέστατος 
ἦν αὐτοῦ Λόγος, φῶς, κιτιλ. De Somniis, i. § 18, Mang., i. 632), And again : 
‘‘ But according to the third meaning, he calls the divine Word the 
sun” (κατὰ δὲ τρίτον σημαινόμενον ἥλιον καλεῖ τὸν θεῖον Λόγον), and proceeds 
to show how by this sun all wickedness is brought to light, and 
the sins done secretly and in darkness are made manifest. De Somniis, 
i. § 15, Mang., i. 684; cf. ib., § 19. 

3 If the Cohort. ad Graecos be assigned to Justin, it directly refers to 
Philo’s works, ὁ. ix. 


298 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


and of writings long antecedent to the fourth Gospel, 
and there can be no doubt, we think, that it was derived 
from them." 

We may now proceed to consider other passages 
adduced by Tischendorf to support his assertion that 
Justin made use of the fourth Gospel. He says: 
“Passages of the Johannine Gospel, however, are also 
not wanting to which passages in Justin refer back. In 
the Dialogue, ch. 88, he writes of John the Baptist : 
‘The people believed that he was the Christ, but he 
cried to them: I am not the Christ, but the voice of a 
preacher.’ This ‘is connected with John i.20 and 23; for 
no other Evangelist has reported the first phrase of the 
reply.”2 Now the passage in Justin, with its context, 


1 Volkmar, Zeitschr. wiss. Theol.,. 1860, p. 300; Der Ursprung, p. 
92 ff.; Scholten, Das Ev. τι. Johann., p. 9 f.; Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 24 ff. ; 
Réville, Hist. du Dogme de la Div. de J. C., 1869, p. 45 ff; Vacherot, 
Hist. de Ecole @ Alexandrie, i. p. 230 ff. ; Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii. p. 
380 ff. ; Credner, Beitrige, i. p. 251 ff. ; Hilgenfeld, Die Evv. Justin’s, 
p. 298 ff.; Baur, Unters. kan. Eyv., p. 351; Theol. Jahrb., 1857, 
p. 223 ff.; cf. Dorner, Die Lehre vi ἃ. Pers. Christi, 1845, i. p. 414 ff; 
Bretschneider, Probabilia de Ey. et Ep. Joan. Apost., p.191f.; J. 7. 
Tobler derives the Johannine Logos doctrine from Philo, Theol. Jahrb., 
1860, p. 180 ff.; Hwald holds that the Epistle to the Hebrews transfers 
the Logos doctrine of Philo to Christianity. The Apostle Paul’s mind 
was filled with it from the same sources. Gesch. d. Volkes Isr., vi. 
p. 474 f., p. 638 ff.; Das Sendschr. a. ἃ. Hebrier, p. 9 ff. ; ef. Kaéstlin, 
Joh. Lehrbegriff, p. 357 ff., p. 392 ff. ; ef. Ldicke, Comment. Ey. Joh., i. 
p. 284 ff.; Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., 11. p. 286 ff., pp. 298, 313, 365 ; 
Der Montanismus, 1841, p. 155; οἵ, Holsten, Zeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1861, 
p. 233 f., anm. 2; Hilgenfeld, Zeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1871, p. 189 ff. ; 
Pfleiderer, Zeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1869, p. 400 ff. That the doctrine of 
the Logos was enunciated in the Κήρυγμα Πέτρου we know from the 
quotations of Clement of Alexandria. Strom., vi. 5, ὃ 39, 7, § ὅδ. 

2 Es fehlt aber auch nicht an einzelnen Stellen des Johanneischen 
Evangeliums, auf welche sich Stellen bei Justin zuriickbeziehen. Im 
Dialog Kap. 88 schreibt er von Johannes dem Taufer: ‘‘ Die Leute glaubten 
dass er der Christ sei; aber er rief ihnen zu: Ich bin nicht Christus, 
sondern Stimme eines Predigers.”” Dies lehnt sich an Joh. i. 20 und 23 
an; denn die ersten Worte in der Antwort des Taufers hat kein anderer 
Evangelist berichtet. Wann wurden, τι. 8. w. p. 33. 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 299 


reads as follows: “For John sat by the Jordan 
(καθεζομένου ἐπὶ τοῦ “lopddvov) and preached the 
Baptism of repentance, wearing only a leathern girdle 
and raiment of camel’s hair, and eating nothing but 
locusts and wild honey; men supposed (ὑπελάμβανον) 
him to be the Christ, wherefore he cried to them: ‘I am 
not the Christ but the voice of one crying: For he 
cometh (ἥξει) who is stronger than I, whose shoes I am 
not meet (ἱκανὸς) to bear.’” * Now the only ground upon 
which this passage can be compared with the fourth 
Gospel is the reply: “1 am not, the Christ” (οὐκ εἰμὶ ὁ 
Χριστός), which in John i. 20 reads: ὅτι ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ὁ 
Χριστός: and it is perfectly clear that, if the direct 
negation occurred in any other Gospel, the difference of 
the whole passage in the Dialogue would prevent even 
an apologist from advancing any claim to its dependence 
on that Gospel. In order to appreciate the nature of the 
two passages, it may be well to collect the nearest 
parallels in the Gospel, and compare them with Justin’s 
narrative. 


Justin, Drat. 88. JOHN I. 19—27. 
Men (οἱ ἄνθρωποι) supposed him 19. And this is the testimony of 
to be the Christ ; John, when the Jews sent priests 


and Leyites from Jerusalem to ask 
him: Who art thou? 

24. And they were sent by the 
Pharisees. 

20. And he confessed, and denied 
wherefore he cried to them: Iam | not: andconfessed* that: I am not 
not the Christ (οὐκ εἰμὶ ὁ Χριστὸς), the Christ (ὅτι ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ὁ Χριστός). 





1 Ἰωάννου γὰρ καθεζομένου ἐπὶ τοῦ ᾿Ιορδάνου, καὶ κηρύσσοντος βάπτισμα 
μετανοίας, καὶ ζώνην δερματίνην καὶ ἔνδυμα ἀπὸ τριχῶν καμήλου μόνον φοροῦντος, 
καὶ μηδὲν ἐσθίοντος πλὴν ἀκρίδας καὶ μέλι ἄγριον, οἱ ἄνθρωποι ὑπελάμβανον αὐτὸν 
εἶναι τὸν Χριστόν" πρὸς ods καὶ αὐτὸς ἐβόα: Οὐκ εἰμὶ 6 Χριστὸς, ἀλλὰ φωνὴ 
βοῶντος: Ἥξει γὰρ ὁ ἰσχυρότερός pou: οὗ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς τὰ ὑποδήματα 
βαστάσαι. Dial. 88. 

3 The second καὶ ὡμλογηοσεν is omitted by the Cod. Sin. 


300 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


Justin, Dru. 88, JouN 1. 19—27. _ 

21. And they asked again: Who 
then? Art thou, Elias? ἄς. &c. 

22... . Whoart thou? &c. &c. 
but the voice, of one crying: 23. He said: I am the voice of 
one crying in the desert: Make 
straight the way of the Lord, as 
said the prophet Isaiah. 

25... . Why baptisest thou ἢ 
&c., &e. 

26. John answered them, saying : 
I baptise with water, but in the 
midst of you standeth one whom 
ye know not. 

For he cometh (ἥξει) who is 27. Who cometh after me (6 ὀπίσω 
stronger than I (ὁ ἰσχυρότερός μου), | μου ἐρχόμενος) who is become before 
whose shoes I am not meet (ἱκανὸς) | me (6s ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν),2 the 
to bear.} thong of whose shoes I am not 
worthy (ἄξιος) to unloose. 





The introductory description of John’s dress and 
habits is quite contrary to the fourth Gospel, but corre- 
sponds to some extent with Matt. ui. 4. It is difficult 
to conceive two accounts more fundamentally different, 
and the discrepancy becomes more apparent when we 
consider the scene and actors in the episode. In Justin, 
it is evident that the hearers of John had received the 
impression that he was the Christ, and the Baptist 
becoming aware of it voluntarily disabused their minds 
of this idea. In the fourth Gospel the words of John 
are extracted from him (“he confessed and denied not’’) 
by emissaries sent by the Pharisees of Jerusalem specially 
to question him on the subject. The account of Justin 
betrays no knowledge of any such interrogation. The 


1 Matt. iii. 11 reads: ‘‘but he that cometh after me is stronger than I 
whose shoes I am not worthy to bear.” (ὁ δὲ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ἰσχυρό- 


τερός μου ἐστίν, οὗ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς τὰ ὑποδήματα βαστάσαι.) The context is 
quite different. Luke iii. 16, more closely resembles the version of the 
fourth Gospel in this part with the context of the first Synoptic. 


2 The Cod. Sinaiticus, as well as most other important MSS., omits 
this phrase. 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 301 


utter difference is brought to a climax by the concluding 
statement of the fourth Gospel :— 


JUSTIN. JOHN I. 28. 
For John sat by the Jordan and These things were done in 
preached the Baptism of repent- | Bethany beyond the river Jordan, 
ance, wearing, &c. where John was baptising. 


In fact the scene in the two narratives is as little the 
same as their details. One can scarcely avoid the con- 
clusion, in reading the fourth Gospel, that it quotes some © 
other account and does not pretend to report the scene 
direct. For instance, i. 15, “ John beareth witness of him, 
and cried, saying: ‘This was he of whom I said: He 
that cometh after me is become before me, because he 
was before me,” &e. V.19: ‘And this is the testi- 
mony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites 
from Jerusalem to ask him: Who art thou? and he 
confessed and denied not, and confessed that I am not 
the Christ,” &c. Now, as usual, the Gospel which Justin 
uses more nearly approximates to our first Synoptic 
than the other Gospels, although it differs in very im- 
portant points from that also—still, taken in connection 
with the third Synoptic, and Acts xiii. 25, this indi- 
cates the great probability of the existence of other 
writings combining the particulars as they occur in 
Justin. Luke ii. 15, reads: “And as the people were 
in expectation, and all mused in their hearts concern- 
ing John whether he were the Christ, 16. John an- 
swered, saying to them all: I indeed baptize you with 
water, but he that is stronger than I cometh, the 
latchet of whose shoes 1 am not worthy to unloose: 
he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with 
fire,” &e. 

Whilst, however, with the sole exception of the simple 


302 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


statement of the Baptist that he was not the Christ, 
which in all the accounts is clearly involved in the rest 
of the reply, there is no analogy whatever between the 
parallel in the fourth Gospel and the passage in Justin, 
many important circumstances render it certain that 
Justin did not derive his narrative from that source. 
We have already’ fully discussed the peculiarities of 
Justin’s account of the Baptist, and in the context to 
‘the very passage before us there are details quite 
foreign to our Gospels which show that Justin made use 
of another and different work. When Jesus stepped 
into the water to be baptized a fire was kindled in the 
Jordan, and the voice from heaven makes use of words 
not found in our Gospels; but both the incident and 
the words are known to have been contained in the 
Gospel according to the Hebrews and other works. 
Justin likewise states, in immediate continuation of the 
passage before us, that Jesus was considered the son of 
Joseph the carpenter, and himself was a carpenter and 
accustomed to make ploughs and yokes.?, The Evan- 
gelical work of which Justin made use was obviously 
different from our Gospels, therefore, and the evident 
conclusion to which any impartial mind must arrive is, 
that there is not only not the slightest ground for 
affirming that Justin quoted the passage before us from 
the fourth Gospel, from which he so fundamentally 
differs, but every reason on the contrary to believe that. 
he derived it from a particular Gospel, in all probability 
the Gospe] according to the Hebrews, different from 
ours. * 


1 Vol. i. p. 316 ff. 2 Dial., 88. 
3 Oredner, Beitrage, ii. p. 218; Hilgenfeld, Die Ἔν. Justin’s, p. 162 ff.; 
Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 33 ; Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii. p. 377 f. ; 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 303 


The next point advanced by Tischendorf is, that on two 
occasions he speaks of the restoration of sight to persons 
born blind,' the only instance of which in our Gospels is 
that recorded, John ix. 1. The references in Justin are 
very vague and general. In the first-place he is speak- 
ing of the analogies in the life of Jesus with events 
believed in connection with mythological deities, and he 
says that he would appear to relate acts very similar to 
those attributed to Aisculapius when he says that Jesus 
“healed the lame and paralytic, and the blind from 
birth (ἐκ γενετῆς πονηροὺς), and raised the dead.”? In 
the Dialogue, again referring to Aisculapius, he says that 
Christ “ healed those who were from birth and according 
to the flesh blind (rods ἐκ γενετῆς καὶ κατὰ THY σάρκα 
πηροὺς), and deaf, and lame.” In the fourth Gospel 
the born-blind is described as (ix. 1) ἄνθρωπος τυφλὸς ἐκ 
γενετῆς. There is a variation it will be observed in the 
term employed by Justin, and that such a remark should 
be seized upon as an argument for the use of the fourth 
Gospel serves to show the poverty of the evidence for the 
existence of that work. Without seeking any further, 
we might at once reply that such general references as 
those of Justin: might well be referred to the common 
tradition of the Church, which certainly ascribed all 
kinds of marvellous cures and miracles to Jesus. It is 
moreover unreasonable to suppose that the only Gospel 
in which the cure of one born blind was narrated was 
Bretschneider, Probabilia, p. 192; Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 97, p. 156 ; 
Zeller, Theol. Jahrb., 1845, p. 613 f., 1847, p. 150 ff.; ef. Hbrard, who 
thinks it a combination of Matt. iii. 11, and John i. 19, but admits that 
it may be from oral tradition. Die evang. Gesch., p. 843. 


1 Apol., i. 22, Dial., 69. On the second occasion Justin seems to 


apply the “‘ from their birth” not only to the blind, but to the lame and 
deaf, 


2 Apol., i, 22. 3 Dial. 69. 


304 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


that which is the fourth in our Canon. Such a miracle 
may have formed part of a dozen similar collections ex- 
tant at the time of Justin, and in no case could such an 
allusion be recognized as any evidence of the use of the 
fourth Gospel. But in the Dialogue, along with this 
remark, Justin couples the statement that although the 
people saw such cures: “They asserted them to be 
magical art; for they also ventured to call him a magi- 
cian and deceiver of the people.”? This is not found in 
our Gospels, but traces of the same tradition are met 
with elsewhere, as we have already mentioned ;? and it 
is probable that Justin either found all these particulars 
in the Gospel of which he made use, or that he refers to 
traditions familiar amongst the early Christians. 
Tischendorf’s next point is that Justin quotes the 
words of Zechariah xii. 10, with the same variation from 
the text of the Septuagint as John xix. 37—“ They 
shall look on him whom they pierced” (ὄψονται εἰς ὃν 
ἐξεκέντησαν ὅ instead of ἐπιβλέψονται πρὸς μὲ, ἀνθ᾽ ὧν 
κατωρχήσαντο), arising out of an emendation of the 
translation of the Hebrew original. Tischendorf says: 
“nothing can be more opposed to probability, than the 
acceptance that John and Justin have here, independently 
of each other, followed a translation of the Hebrew text 
which elsewhere has remained unknown to us.”* The 
fact is, however, that the translation which has been fol- 


il ; φ ’ ‘ 4 6 ex ‘ A , 3 roe" 
-«.. φαντασίαν μαγικὴν γίνεσθαι ἔλεγον. Καὶ yap μάγον εἰναι αὑτὸν 


ἐτόλμων λέγειν καὶ AaomAdvov. Dial. 69. 

3 Vol. i. p. 324 ἴ. 

3 Justin has, Apol. i. 52, ὄψονται εἰς ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν. Dial. 14, καὶ ὄψεται 
ὁ λαὸς ὑμῶν καὶ γνωριεῖ cis ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν, and, Dial. 32, speaking of the 
two comings of Christ; the first, in which he was pierced, (ἐξεκεντήθη), 
‘‘and the second in which ye shall know whom ye have pierced ;” δευτέραν 
δὲ ὅτε ἐπιγνώσεσθε εἰς ὃν ἐξεκεντήσατε. 

4 Wann wurden, u. 8. w., p. 34. 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 305 


lowed is not elsewhere unknown. We meet with the 
same variation, much earlier, in the only book of. the 
New Testament which Justin mentions, and with which, 
therefore, he was beyond any doubt well acquainted, 
Rev. i. 7: “Behold he cometh with clouds, and every 
eye shall see him (ὄψεται αὐτὸν), and they which 
pierced (ἐξεκέντησαν) him, and all the tribes of the earth 
shall bewail him. Yea, Amen.” ‘This is a direct refer- 
ence to the passage in Zech. xii. 10. If Justin derived 
his variation from either of the Canonical works, there 
can be no doubt that it must have been from the Apoca- 
lypse. It will be remembered that the quotation in the 
Gospel : “ They shall look upon him whom they pierced,” 
is made solely in reference to the thrust of the, lance in 
the side of Jesus, while that of the Apocalypse is a con- 
nection of the prophecy with the second coming of Christ, 
which, except in a spiritual sense, is opposed to the fourth 
Gospel. Now, Justin upon each occasion quotes the 
whole passage also in reference to the second coming of 
Christ as the Apocalypse does, and this alone settles the 
point so far as these two sources are concerned. The cor- 
rection of the Septuagint version, which has thus been 
traced back as far as A.D. 68 when the Apocalypse was 
composed, was noticed by Jerome in his Commentary on 
the text ; and Aquila, a contemporary of Irenzeus, and 
later Symmachus and Theodotion, as well as others, cor- 
rected the error and adopted ἐξεκέντησαν. Ten important 
MSS., at least, have the reading of Justin and the Apoca- 
lypse, and these MSS. likewise frequently agree with the 

1 «Quod ibi (1 Regg. ii. 18) errore interpretationis accidit, etiam hic 
factum deprehendimus. Si enim legatur Dacaru, ἐξεκέντησαν, t.e., com- 
punxerunt sive confixerunt accipitur: sin autem contrario ordine, literis 
commutatis Racadu, ὠρχήσαντο, i.e., saltayerunt intelligitur et ob 


similitudinem literarum error est natus.” 
VOL. Il. x 


306 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


other peculiar readings of Justin’s text. In ali proba- 
bility, as Credner, who long ago pointed out all these 
circumstances which are lost upon: Tischendorf, conjec- 
tured, an emendation of the version of the LXX. had early 
been made, partly in Christian interest and partly for the 
. critical improvement of the text, and this amended ver- 
sion was used by Justin and earlier Christian writers.’ 

Every consideration is opposed to the dependence of 
Justin upon the fourth Gospel for this variation. His 
reading existed long before that Gospel was written in a 
work with which he declared himself acquainted, whilst 
not only is his use of the Gospel in any case unproved, 
but in this instance the quotation is applied by the 
Gospel in a different connection from Justin’s, who in 
this also agrees with the earlier Apocalypse. The whole 
argument based on this text falls to the ground. 

‘The next and last point advanced by Tischendorf is a 
passage in Apol. 1. 61, which is compared with John ii. 
8—5, and in order to show the exact character of the 
two passages, we shall at once place them in parallel 
columns :— 


JUSTIN, APOL. I. 61. JOHN 111. ὃ--ὄ. 


For the Christ also said: 


Unless ye be born again (dvayevyn- 
θῆτε) ye shall not enter into the 
kingdom of heayen. 

Now that it is impossible for 
those who haye once been born to 
80 (ἐμβῆναι) into the matrices of the 
parents? (εἰς ras μήτρας τῶν τεκουσῶν) 
is evident to all. 





3. Jesus answered and said unto 
him: Verily, verily, I say unto 
thee: Except a man be born from 
above (γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν) he cannot see 
the kingdom of God. 

4. Nicodemus saith unto him: 
How can a man be born when he 
isold? Can he enter (εἰσελθεῖν) a 
second time into his mother’s womb 
(εἰς τῆν κοιλίαν τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ) and 
be born ? 


1 Credner, Beitriige, ii. p. 293 ff.; Hilgenfeld, Die Evv. Justins, 
p. 49 ff.; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 37; Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii. 


p. 378. 


? Τεκοῦσα, a mother, instead of μήτηρ. 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR 


Justin, Apow. 1. 61. 


Kai yap ὁ Χριστὸς εἶπεν: *Av μὴ 


ἀναγεννηθῆτε, οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν 
βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν. Ὅτι δὲ καὶ 


, ~ ΄“ 
ἀδύνατον εἰς τὰς μήτρας τῶν τεκουσῶν 

, a re > = A 
τοὺς ἅπαξ γεννωμένους ἐμβῆναι, φανερὸν 


THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 307 
JOHN I. 3—5. 

5. Jesusanswered: Verily, verily, 
I say unto thee: Except a man be 
born of water and of the Spirit, he 
cannot enter into' the kingdom of 
God. 

3. ᾿Απεκρίθη ᾿Ιησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ 
᾿Αμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, ἐὰν μή τις 
γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν, οὐ δύναται ἰδεῖν τὴν 
βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ. 

4, Λέγει πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁ Νικόδημος 
Πῶς δύναται ἄνθρωπος γεννηθῆναι γέρων 
ὦν; μὴ δύναται εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν τῆς 


πᾶσίν ἐστι. μητρὸς αὐτοῦ δεύτερον εἰσελθεῖν καὶ 
γεννηθῆαι ; 

5. ᾿Απεκρίθη ᾿Ιησοῦς ᾿Αμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω 

ay , δ ὩΣ ἢ , 

σοι, ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ 

’ > ’ > 6 al > 3 

πνεύματος, ov δύναται εἰσελθεῖν εἰς 


τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ." 





This is the most important passage by which apolo- 
gists endeavour to establish the use by Justin of the 
fourth Gospel, and it is that upon which the whole claim 
may be said to rest. We shall be able to appreciate the 
nature of the case by the weakness of its strongest evi- 
dence. The first point which must have struck any 
attentive reader, must have been the singular difference 
of the language of Justin, and the absence of the charac- 
teristic peculiarities of the Johannine Gospel. The double 
“verily, verily,” which occurs twice even in these three 
verses, and constantly throughout the Gospel,° is absent 
in Justin ; and apart from the total difference of the form 

1 The Cod. Sinaiticus reads: ‘‘ he cannot see.” 

3 The Cod. Sinaiticus has been altered here to ‘‘ of heaven.” 

3 The Cod. Sinaiticus reads ἰδεῖν for εἰσελθεῖν εἰς here. 

4 The Cod. Sin. has τῶν οὐρανῶν substituted for rod θεοῦ by a later hand, 
but this is only supported by a very few obscure and unimportant codices. 


The Codices Alex. (A) and Vatic. (B), as well as all the most ancient MSS., 
read τοῦ θεοῦ. 

5 Of. 1. 51; ii. 11; v. 19, 24, 25; vi. 26, 32, 47, 58; viii. 94, 51, 58; 
x. 1, 73 xii. 243 Sih ΤΟΥ ΣΟ; 21, S68's" χὶγν 12: “xvi. 20, 23; xxi, 
18, &c., &e, 

x 2 


308 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


in which the whole passage is given (the episode of Nico- 
demus being entirely ignored), and omitting minor 
differences, the following linguistic variations occur : 
Justin has : 
ἂν μὴ ἀναγεννηθῆτε instead of ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν 


οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς ᾿Ξ οὐ δύναται ἰδεῖν 
βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν ν βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ 
ἀδύνατον * μὴ δύναται 
4 , 4 , 
Tas pyTpas ν᾽ τὴν κοιλίαν 
τῶν τεκουσῶν ᾽» τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ 
ἐμβῆναι ᾿Ξ εἰσελθεῖν 
τοὺς ἅπαξ γεννωμένους .: ἄνθρωπος γεννηθῆναι γέρων av 


Indeed it is impossible to imagine a more complete differ- 
ence, both in form and language, and it seems to us that 
there does not exist a single linguistic trace by which the 
passage in Justin can be connected with the fourth 
Gospel. The fact that Justin knows nothing of the ex- 
pression γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν (“ born from above”), upon which 
the whole statement in the fourth Gospel turns, but uses 
a totally different word, ἀναγεννηθῆτε (born again), is of 
great significance. ‘Tischendorf wishes to translate 
ἄνωθεν “anew” (or again), as the version of Luther and 
the authorised English translation read, and thus render 
the ἀναγεννηθῆναι of Justin a fair equivalent for it; but 
even this would not alter the fact that so little does 
Justin quote the fourth Gospel, that he has not even the 
test word of the passage. In no case can ἄνωθεν, how- 
ever, here signify anything but “from above,” and this 
is not only its natural meaning, but it is confirmed by the 
equivalent Syriac expression in the Peschito version, the 
nearest language to that originally used.?, The word is 


1 It is very forced to jump to the end of the fifth verse to get 
εἰσελθεῖν εἰς and even in that case the Cod. Sin. reads again precisely 
as in the third ἰδεῖν. 

_ 3 Suicer, Thesaurus s. v. ἄνωθεν ; Credner, Beitrige, i. p. 253; Hilgen- 
Jeld, Die Evy. Justin’s, p. 214 ; Lightfoot, Horse Hebr. et Talm. on John 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 309 


repeatedly used in the fourth Gospel, and always with the 
same sense, “ from above,” “from heaven,”! and it is re- 
peated in confirmation, and marking how completely the 
emphasis of the saying rests upon the expression, in the — 
seventh verse: “ Marvel not that I said unto thee: ye 
must be born from above” (γεννηθῆναι ἄνωθεν). This 
signification, moreover, is manifestly confirmed by the 
context, and intended as the point of the whole lesson. 
The explanation of the term “ born from above” is given 
in verses 5, 6. “Except a man be born of water and 
of Spirit? he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 
6. That which hath been born of the flesh is flesh, and 
that which hath been born of the Spirit is Spirit.” The 
birth “of the Spirit” is the birth “ from above,” which is 
essential to entranee into the kingdom of God.* The 
sense of the passage in Justin is different and much more 
simple. He is speaking of regeneration through baptism, 
and the manner in which converts are consecrated to 
God when they are made new (καινοτποιηθέντες) through 
Christ. After they are taught to fast and pray for the 
remission of their sins, he says: “They are then taken by 
us where there is water, that they may be regenerated 
(“born again,” ἀναγεννῶνται), by the same manner of 
regeneration (being born again, ἀναγεννήσεως) by which 
we also were regenerated (born again, ἀναγεννήθημεν). 
For in the name of the Father of the Universe the Lord 
God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy 


ili. 3; Works, xii. p. 254 ff.; Scholten, Die ult. Zeugnisse, p. 36; David- 
son, Introd. N. T., ii. p. 875; Bretschneider, Probabilia, p. 193; Weiz- 
sticker does not deny this. Unters. evang. Gesch., p. 228 ; Liicke, Comment. 
Ey. Joh., i. p. 516 ff. ; Zeller, Theol. Jabrb., 1855, p. 140. 

1 Of. 81: χιχ 81. 28. 

2 Of. Ezekiel xxxvi. 25—27. 

5. Cf. Li htfoot, Horee Hebr. et Talm. Works, xii. . 260. 


310 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


Spirit they then make the washing with the water. 
For the Christ also said, ‘unless ye be born again — 
(ἀναγεννηθῆτε), ye shall not enter into the kingdom of 
heaven.’ Now that it is impossible for those who have 
once been born to go into the matrices of the parents is 
evident to all.” And then he quotes Isaiah i 16—20, 
“Wash you, make you clean, &c.,” and then proceeds : 
“ And regarding this (Baptism) we have been taught this 
reason. Since at our first birth we were born without 
_ our knowledge, and perforce, &c., and brought up in evil 
habits and wicked ways, therefore in order that we should 
not continue children of necessity and ignorance, but 
become children of election and knowledge, and obtain 
in the water remission of sins which we had previously 
committed, the name of the Father of the Universe and 
Lord God is pronounced over him who desires to be born 
again (ἀναγεννηθῆναι), and has repented of his sins, &c.” 
Now it is clear that whereas Justin speaks simply of re- 
generation by baptism, the fourth Gospel indicates a later 
development of the doctrine by spiritualizing the idea, 
and requiring not only regeneration through the water 
(“ Except a man be born of water”), but that a man 
should be born from above (“and of the Spirit ἢ, not 
merely ἀναγεννηθῆναι, but ἄνωθεν γεννηθῆαι. The word 
used by Justin is that which was commonly employed in 
the Church for regeneration, and other instances of it 
occur in the New Testament.? 

The idea of regeneration or being born again, as essen- 
tial to conversion, was quite familiar to the Jews them- 
selves, and Lightfoot gives instances of this from 
Talmudic writings: “If any one become ἃ proselyte 
he is like a child ‘new born.” The Gentile that is 


? Apol. i. 61. 2 Cf. 1 Peter i. 3, 28, 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 311 


made a proselyte and the servant that is made free he 
is like a child new born.”! This is, of course, based 
upon the belief in special privileges granted to the Jews, 
and the Gentile convert admitted to a share in the 
benefits of the Messiah became a Jew by spiritual new 
birth. It must be remembered, however, that Justin is 
addressing the Roman emperors, who would not under- 
stand the expression that it was necessary to be “born 
again” in order to enter the kingdom of heaven. He, 
therefore, explains that he does not mean a physical new 
birth by men already born ; and we contend that not only’ 
may this explanation be regarded as natural, under the 
circumstances, and independent of any written source, 
but the absolute and entire difference of his language 
from that of the fourth Gospel renders it certain that it 
could not in any case be derived from that Gospel. 
Justin in giving the words of Jesus clearly professed 
to make an exact quotation:? “ For Christ also said : 
Unless ye be born again, &c.,” and as the expressions 
which he quotes differ in every respect, in language and 
sense, from the parallel in the fourth Gospel, it seems 
quite absurd to argue that they must be derived from 
that Gospel. Such an argument assumes the utterly un- 
tenable premiss that sayings of Jesus which are main- 
tained to be historical were not recorded in more than four 
Gospels, and indeed in this instance were limited to one. 
This is not only in itself preposterous, but historically 
untrue? and a moment of consideration must convince 
every impartial mind that an express quotation of a sup- 
posed historical saying cannot reasonably be asserted to 
be taken from a parallel in one of our Gospels, from which 


1 Lightfoot, Works, xii. p. 255 ff. 
Bretschneider, Probabilia, p. 193. 3 Cf. Luke i. 1, 


312 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


it differs in every particular of language and circum- 
stance, simply because that Gospel happens to be the 
only one now surviving which contains particulars some- 
what similar." The express quotation fundamentally 
differs from the fourth Gospel, and the natural explana- 
tion of Justin which follows is not a quotation at all, and 
likewise fundamentally differs from the Johannine parallel. 
Justin not only ignores here the whole episode in the 
fourth Gospel in which the passage occurs, but both here 
and throughout the whole of his writings knows nothing 
whatever of Nicodemus, and all the characteristic points 
are wanting which could constitute a prima facie case 
for examination. ‘The accident of survival is almost the 
only justification of the claim in favour of the fourth 
Gospel to be the source of Justin’s quotation. On the 
other hand, we have many strong indications of another 
source. In our first Synoptic (xvui. 3), we find the 
traces of another version of the saying of Jesus, much 
more nearly corresponding with the quotation of Justin : 
“And he said, verily I say unto you: Except ye be 
turned and become as the little children ye shall not 
enter into the kingdom of heaven.”? The last phrase of 
this saying is literally the same as the quotation of Justin, 
and gives his expression, “ kingdom of heaven,” so charac- 
teristic of his Gospel, and so foreign to the Johannine. 
We meet with a similar quotation in connection with 
baptism, still more closely agreeing with Justin, in the 
Clementine Homilies, xi. 26: “Verily 1 say unto you: 
Except ye be born again (ἀναγεννηθῆτε) by living water in 
the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, ye shall not 


1 Cf. Credner, Beitrige, i. p. 253 f. 


2 4" > \ ΄ eon A 
kal εἶπεν ᾿Αμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἐὰν μὴ στραφῆτε καὶ γένησθε ὡς τὰ παιδία, οὐ μὴ 


εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν. Matt. xviii. 3. 


- EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 313 


enter into the kingdom of heaven.”? Here again we have 
both the ἀναγεννηθῆτε, and the βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν, as 
well as the reference only to water in the baptism, and 
this is strong confirmation of the existence of a version 
of the passage, different from the Johannine, from which 
Justin quotes. As both the Clementines and Justin made 
use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the most 
competent critics have, with reason, adopted the conclu- 
sion that the passage we are discussing was derived from 
that Gospel; at any rate it cannot for a moment be 
maintained as a quotation from our fourth Gospel,’ and 
it is of no value as evidence for its existence. 

If we turn fora moment from this last of the points of 
evidence adduced by Tischendorf for the use of the fourth 
Gospel by Justin, to consider how far the circumstances 
of the history of Jesus narrated by Justin bear upon this 
quotation, we have a striking confirmation of the results 
we have otherwise attained. Not only is there a total 
absence from his writings of the peculiar terminology and 
characteristic expressions of the fourth Gospel, but there 


1 ᾿Αμὴν ὑμῖν λέγω, ἐὰν μὴ ἀναγεννηθῆτε ὕδατι ζῶντι, εἰς ὄνομα Πατρὸς, Υἱοῦ, 
ἁγίου Πνεύματος, οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν. ~Hom. xi. 26. 
Cf. Recogn. vi. 9: ‘‘ Amen dico vobis, nisi quis denuo renatus fuerit ex 
aqua, non introibit in regna ccelorum.” Cf. Clem. Hom. Epitome, ὃ 18. 
In this much later compilation the passage, altered and manipulated, is of 
no interest. Uhlhorn, Die Homilien ἃ. Recogn., 1854, p. 43 ἢ; 
Schliemann, Die Clementinen, 1844, p. 334 ff. 

3 Baur, Unters. kan. Evv., p. 352; Theol. Jahrb., 1857, p. 230 ff.; 
Bretschneider, Probabilia, p. 179 ff, p. 192 f.; Credner, Beitrage, i. p. 
252 ff.; Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii. p. 374 f.; Gieseler, Enst. schr. Evv., 
p. 14, cf. p. 145 ff. ; Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. Justins, p. 214 ff., p. 358 ff. ; 
Das Evang. Joh. u. s. w., 1849, p. 151, anm. 1; ZLiitzelberger, Die kirchl. 
Tradition τ. Ap. Joh., u. 5. w., 1840, p. 122 ff. ; Scholten, Die alt. Zeug- 
nisse, p. 34 ff.; Das Ey. Joh., p. 8 f.; Schwegler, Der Montanismus, 
p. 184, anm. 86; Das nachap. Zeit., i. p. 218 ff.; Volkmar, Justin ἃ. 
Mart., 1853, p. 18 ff.; Zeller, Theol. Jahrb., 1845, p. 614; 1847, p. 152; 
1855, p. 138 ff. 


314 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


is not an allusion made to any one of the occurrences 
exclusively narrated by that Gospel, although many of 
these, and many parts of the Johannine discourses of 
Jesus, would have been peculiarly suitable for his pur- 
pose. We have already pointed out the remarkable 
absence of any use of the expressions by which the Logos 
doctrine is stated in the prologue. We may now point 
out that Justin knows nothing whatever of the special 
miracles of the fourth Gospel. He is apparently quite 
ignorant even of the raising of Lazarus: on the other 
hand, he gives representations of the birth, life, and 
death of Jesus, which are ignored by the Johannine Gos- 
pel, and are indeed opposed to its whole conception .of 
Jesus as the Logos ; and when he refers to circumstances 
which are also narrated in that Gospel, his account is 
different from that which it gives. Justin perpetually 
refers to the birth of Jesus by the Virgin of the race of 
David and the Patriarchs ; his Logos thus becomes man,’ 
(not “ flesh,”—avOpwrros, not σὰρξ) ; he is born in a cave 
in Bethlehem ;? he grows in stature and intellect by the 
use of ordinary means like other men; he is accounted 
the son of Joseph the carpenter and Mary: he himself 
works as a carpenter, and makes ploughs and yokes.? 
When Jesus is baptized by John, a fire is kindled in 
Jordan ; and Justin knows nothing of John’s express 
declaration in the fourth Gospel, that Jesus is the 
Messiah, the Son of God Justin refers to the change 
of name of Simon in connection with his recognition of 
the Master as “ Christ the Son of God,” *® which is nar- 
rated quite differently in the fourth Gospel (i. 40—42), 
where, indeed, such a declaration is put into the mouth of 


1 Dial., 100, &c., &e. Ὁ Dial. 18. ς 
3 Dial., 88. 4 Dial., 88. 5. Dial., 100. 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 315 


Nathaniel (i. 49), of which Justin knows nothing. 
Justin knows nothing of Nicodemus, either in connection 
with the statement regarding the necessity of being 
“born from above,” or with the entombment (xix. 39). 
He has the prayer and agony in the garden,’ of which the 
fourth Gospel knows nothing, as well as the cries on the 
cross, which the Gospel ignores. Then, according to Justin, 
the last supper takes place on the 14th Nisan,? whilst the 
fourth Gospel, ignoring the Passover and last supper, 
makes the last meal be eaten on the 13th Nisan (John 
xiii. 1f., οὗ xviii, 28). He likewise contradicts the 
fourth Gospel, in limiting the work of Jesus to one year. 
In fact, it is impossible for writings, so full of quotations 
of the words of Jesus and of allusions to the events of 
his life, more completely to ignore or vary from the 
fourth Gospel throughout ; and if it could be shown that 
Justin was acquainted with such a work, it would follow 
certainly that he did not consider it an Apostolical or 
authoritative composition. 

We may add that as Justin so distinctly and directly 
refers to the Apostle John as the author of the Apocalypse,? 
there is confirmation of the conclusion, otherwise arrived 
at, that he did not, and could not, know the Gospel and 
also ascribe it to him. Finally, the description which 
Justin gives of the manner of teaching of Jesus excludes 
the idea that he knew the fourth Gospel. “Brief and 
concise were the sentences uttered by him: for he was 
no Sophist, but his word was the power of God.”* No 


1 Dial., 99, 103. 

2 «* And it is written that on the day of the Passover you seized him, 
and likewise during the Passover you crucified him.” Dial., 111; cf. Apol. 
1. 67; Matt. xxvi. 2, 17 ff., 30, 57. 8 Dial., 81. 

4 Βραχεῖς δὲ καὶ σύντομοι παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ λόγοι γεγόνασιν. Οὐ γὰρ σοφιστὴς 
ὑπῆρχεν, ἀλλὰ δύναμις θεοῦ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ ἦν. Apol. i. 14. 


316 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


one could for a moment assert that this description 
applies to the long and artificial discourses of the fourth 
Gospel, whilst, on the other hand, it eminently describes 
the style of teaching with which we are acquainted in 
the Synoptics, with which the Gospel according to the 
Hebrews, in all its forms, was so nearly allied. 

The inevitable conclusion at which we must arrive is 
that, so far from indicating any acquaintance with the 
fourth Gospel, the writings of Justin not only do not 
furnish the slightest evidence of its existence, but offer 
presumptive testimony against its Apostolical origin. 

Tischendorf only devotes a short note to Hegesippus,’ 
and does not pretend to find in the fragments of his 
writings, preserved to us by Eusebius, or the details of 
his life which he has recorded, any evidence for our 
Gospels. Apologists generally admit that this source, at 
least, is dry of all testimony for the fourth Gospel, but 
Canon Westcott cannot renounce so important a witness 
without an effort, and he therefore boldly says: “ When 
he, (Hegesippus) speaks of ‘the door of Jesus’ in his 
account of the death of St. James, there can be little 
doubt that he alludes to the language of our Lord 
recorded by St. John.”? The passage to which Canon 
Westcott refers, but which he does not quote, is as 
follows :— Certain, therefore, of the seven heretical 
parties amongst the people, already described by me in 
the Memoirs, inquired of him, what was the door of 
Jesus ; and he declared this (rodrov—Jesus) to be the 
Saviour. From which some believed that Jesus is the 
Christ. But the aforementioned heretics did not believe 
either a resurrection, or a coming to render to every one 


1 Wann wurden, τι. 8. w., p. 19, anm. 1. 
2 On the Canon, p. 182 f. 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 317 


according to his works. As many as believed, however, 
did so, through James.” ‘The rulers fearing that the 
people would cause a tumult, from considering Jesus to 
be the Messiah (Χριστός), entreat James to persuade 
them concerning Jesus, and prevent their being deceived 
by him; and in order that he may be heard by the 
multitude, they place James upon a wing of the temple, 
and cry to him: ‘‘O just man, whom all ought to believe, 
inasmuch as the people are led astray after Jesus, the 
crucified, declare plainly to us what is the door of Jesus.” ! 
To find in this a reference to the fourth Gospel, requires 
a good deal of ignorant ingenuity, or apologetic partiality. 
It is perfectly clear that, as an allusion to John x. 7, 9: 
“Tam the door,” the question: “ What is the door of 
Jesus ?” is mere nonsense, and the reply of James totally 
iurelevant. Such a question in reference to the discourse 
in the fourth Gospel, moreover, in the mouths of the 
antagonistic Scribes and Pharisees, is an interpretation 
which is obviously too preposterous. Various emenda- 
tions of the text have been proposed to obviate what has 
been regarded as a difficulty in the passage, but none of 
these have been adopted, and it has now been generally 
accepted, that θύρα is used in an idiomatic sense. The 
word is very frequently employed in such a manner, or 
symbolically, in the New Testament,? and by the Fathers. 


1 Τινὲς οὖν τῶν ἑπτὰ αἱρέσεων τῶν ἐν τῷ λαῷ, τῶν προγεγραμμένων μοι ἐν 
τοῖς ὑπομνήμασιν, ἐπυνθάνοντο αὐτοῦ, τίς ἡ θύρα τοῦ ᾿Ισοῦ. Καὶ ἔλεγε τοῦτον 
εἶναι τὸν Σωτῆρα. “EE ὧν τινὲς ἐπίστευσαν, ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐστὶν ὁ Χριστός. Αἱ δὲ 
αἱρέσεις al προειρημέναι οὐκ ἐπίστευον οὔτε ἀνάστασιν, οὔτε ἐρχόμενον ἀποδοῦναι 
ἑκάστῳ πατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ. Ὅσοι δὲ καὶ ἐπίστευσαν, διὰ ᾿Ιάκωβον. ........ 
Δίκαιε, ᾧ πάντες πείθεσθαι ὀφείλομεν, ἐπεὶ ὁ λαὸς πλανᾶται ὀπίσω ᾿Ιησοῦ τοῦ 
σταυρωθέντος, ἀπάγγειλον ἡμῖν τίς ἡ θύρα τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ. Husebius, H. E., 
li. 28. 

2 Of. Acts xiv. 27; 1 Cor. xvi. 9; 2 Cor. ii. 12; Col. ivy. 3; James y, 
9; Rev. iii. 8, 20; iv. 1. 


318 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


The Jews were well acquainted with a similar use of the 
word in the Old Testament, in some of the Messianic 
Psalms, as for instance: Ps. exvilil. 19, 20 (exvu. 19, 20 
Sept.). 19, “Open to me the gates (zvAas) of righteousness ; 
entering into them, I will give praise to the Lord;” 20, 
“This is the gate (ἡ πύλη) of the Lord, the righteous 
shall enter into it.”! Quoting this passage, Clement of 
Alexandria remarks: “ But explaining the meaning of the 
prophet, Barnabas adds : Many gates (πυλῶν) being open, 
that which is in righteousness isin Christ, in which all 
those who enter are blessed.”? Grabe explains the passage 
of Hegesippus, by a reference to the frequent allusions 
in Scripture to the two ways: one of light, the other of 
darkness ; the one leading to life, the other to death ; as 
well as the simile of two gates which is coupled with 
- them, as in Matt. vii. 13 ff. He, therefore, explains the 
question of the rulers: “ What is the door of Jesus?” as 
an inquiry into the judgment of James concerning him: 
whether he was a teacher of truth or a deceiver of the 
people ; whether belief in him was the way and gate of 
life and salvation, or of death and perdition.* He refers 
as an illustration to the Epistle of Barnabas, xviii: 
“‘ There are two ways of doctrine and authority : one of 
light, the other of darkness. But there is a great differ- 
ence between the two ways.”* The Epistle, under the 
symbol of the two ways, classifies the whole of the moral 


1 Cf. Ps. xxiv. 7—8 (xxiii. 7—8 Sept.) 

2 ἐξηγούμενος δὲ τὸ ῥητὸν τοῦ προφήτου BapvaBas émupéper> “ πολλῶν πυλῶν 
ἀνεῳγυιῶν, ἡ ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐν Χριστῷ, ἐν 7] μακάριοι πάντες οἱ 
εἰσελθόντες." Strom. vi. 8, § 64. This passage is not to be found in 
the Epistle of Barnabas. 

3 Spicil. Patr., 11. p. 254. 

- 4 'Οδοὶ δύο εἰσὶν διδαχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας, 7 τε τοῦ φωτὸς, καὶ ἡ τοῦ σκότους. 
Διαφορὰ δὲ πολλὴ τῶν δύο ὁδῶν. Barnabee Ep. xviii. 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 319 


law. In the Clementine Homilies, xviii. 17, there is a 
version of the saying, Matt. vii. 13f, derived from 
another source, in which “way” is more decidedly even 
than in our first Synoptic made the equivalent of “gate :” 
“Enter ye through’ the narrow and straightened way 
(ὁδός) through which ye shall enter into life.” Eusebius 
himself, who has preserved the fragment, evidently 
understood it distinctly in the same sense, and he gave 
its true meaning in another of his works, where he 
paraphrases the question into an enquiry, as to the 
opinion which James held concerning Jesus (τίνα περὶ 
Tov Ἰησοῦ ἔχοι Sd€av).2 This view is supported by 
many learned men, and Routh has pointed out that 
Ernesti considered he would have been right in making 
διδαχὴ, doctrine, teaching, the equivalent of θύρα, 
although he admits that Eusebius does not once use it 
in his history, in connection with Christian doctrine.* 
He might, however, have instanced this passage, in 
which it is clearly used in this sense, and so explained 
by Eusebius. In any other sense the question is simple 
nonsense. There is evidently no intention on the part 
of the Seribes and Pharisees here to ridicule, in asking : 
‘‘ What is the door of Jesus?” but they desire James to 
declare plainly to the people, what is the teaching of 

1 In like manner the Clementine Homilies give a peculiar version of 
Deut. xxx. 15: “ Behold I have set before thy face the way of life, and 
the way of death.” ᾿Ἰδοὺ τέθεικα πρὸ προσώπου σου τὴν ὁδόν τῆς ζωῆς, καὶ 
τὴν ὁδὸν τοῦ θανάτου. Hom. xviii. 17, cf. vii. 7. 

3 Prep. Evang. iii. 7. Routh, Rel. Sacr. i. p. 235. 

3 Si ego in Glossis ponerem : θύρα, διδαχὴ, rectum esset. Sed respicerem 
ad loca Gracorum theologorum y. ὁ. Eusebii in Hist. Eccl. ubi non 
semel θύρα Χριστοῦ (sic) de doctrina Christiana dicitur.”  Dissert. De 
Usu Glossariorum. Routh, Reliq. Sacra. i. p. 236. Donaldson gives as 
the most probable meaning: ‘‘To what is it that Jesus is to lead us? 


And James’ answer is therefore: ‘To salyation.’” Hist. Chr. Lit. and 
Doctr., iii. p. 190, note. 


320 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


Jesus, and his personal pretension. To suppose that the 
rulers of the Jews set James upon a wing of the temple, 
in order that they might ask him a question, for the 
benefit of the multitude, based upon a discourse in the 
fourth Gospel, unknown to the Syhoptics, and even in 
relation to which such an inquiry as: “ What is the 
door of Jesus?” becomes mere ironical nonsense, sur- 
passes all that we could have imagined, even of apologetic 
zeal. 

We have already! said all that is necessary with 
regard to Hegesippus, in connection with the Synoptics, 
and need not add more here. It is certain that had he 
mentioned our Gospels, and we may say particularly the 
fourth, the fact would have been recorded by Eusebius. 
This first historian of the Christian Church, whose 
ὑπομνήματα were composed during the time of the 
Roman Bishop Eleutherus, “a.p. 177 (182 2), 193,” 
presents the suggestive phenomenon of a Christian of 
learning and extensive observation, even at that late 
date, who had travelled throughout the Christian com- 
munities with a view to ascertaining the state of the 
Church, who made exclusive use of the Gospel accord- 
ing to the Hebrews, displayed no knowledge of our 
Gospels, and whose only Canon was the Law, the 
Prophets, and the words of the Lord, which he derived 
from the Hebrew Gospel, and probably from oral tradi- 
tion. 

In Papias of Hierapolis* we have a similar phenome- 
non: a Bishop of the Christian Church, flourishing in 
the second half of the second century, who recognized 


1 Vol. i. p. 429 ff. 
3 Tischendorf, Wann wurden, τι. 5. w., p. 19, anm. 1. 
3 See vol. i. p. 444 ff. 








EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. = 321 - 


none of our Gospels, made use of the Gospel according 
to the Hebrews, and set oral tradition above all 
written documents with which he was acquainted. It 
is perfectly clear that the works of Matthew and Mark, 
regarding which he records such important particulars, 
are not the Gospels in our Canon, which pass under 
their names, and there is no reason to suppose that he 
referred to the fourth Gospel or made use of it. He 
is, therefore, at least, a total blank so far as the Johan- 
nine Gospel and our third Synoptic are concerned, but 
he is more than this, and it may, we think, be concluded 
that Papias was not acquainted with any Gospels which 
he regarded as Apostolic compositions, or authoritative 
documents. It is impossible that, knowing, and recog- 
nizing the Apostolic origin and authority of, such 
Gospels, he could have spoken of them in such terms, 
and held them so cheap in comparison with tradition, or 
that he should have undertaken, as he undoubtedly did, 
to supplement and correct them by his work, which 
Eusebius describes. ‘‘ For I have not, like the multi- 
tude,” he says, “taken pleasure in those who spoke 
much, but in those who taught the truth; neither in 
those who recorded alien commandments, but in those 
who recall those delivered by the Lord to the faith, and 
which proceed from the truth itself. If it happened that 
any one came, who had associated with the Presbyters, I 
inquired minutely after the words of the Presbyters, 
what Andrew or what Peter said, or what Philip or what 
Thomas or James, or what John or Matthew, or what 
any other of the disciples of the Lord said; what 
Aristion and the Presbyter John, the disciples of the 
Lord, say. For I hold that what was to be derived from 


VOL, 11. ¥ 


322 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


books was not so profitable as that from the living and 
abiding voice (of tradition).” This depreciation of 
books, and anxiety to know “what John or Matthew, or 
the other disciples of the Lord said,” is incompatible with 
the supposition that he was acquainted with Gospels* 
which he attributed to those Apostles. Had he expressed 
any recognition- of the fourth Gospel, Eusebius would 
certainly have mentioned the fact, and this silence of 
Papias is strong presumptive evidence against the Johan- 
nine Gospel.? 

Tischendorf’s main argument in regard to the Phrygian 
Bishop is, that his silence does not make Papias a witness 
against the fourth Gospel, and he maintains that the 
omission of any mention by Eusebius of the use of this 
Gospel in the work of Papias is not singular, and does 
not involve the conclusion that he did not know it, inas- 
much as it was not, he affirms, the purpose of Eusebius 
to record the mention or use of the books of the New 
Testament which were not disputed.* This reasoning, 
however, is opposed to the practice and express declaration 
of Eusebius himself, who says: “ But in the course of the 
history I shall, with the successions (from the Apostles), 


1 Eusebius, H. E., 111. 39. 

3 It is evident that Papias did not regard the works by ‘‘ Matthew” and 
‘* Mark” which he mentions, as of any authority. Indeed, all that he 
reports regarding the latter is merely apologetic, and in deprecation of 
criticism. 

3 Zeller, Theol. Jahrb., 1845, p. 652 ff.; 1847, p. 148 f.; Hilgenfeld, 
Die Evangelien, p. 344; Zeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1865, p. 334; Credner, 
Beitrage, i. p. 23 f.; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 16 ff.; Davidson, 
Introd. N. T., ii. p. 371; Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 61; Renan, Vie de 
Jésus, xili™ ed., 1867, p. lviii. f.; Strauss, Das Leben Jesu, 1864, 
p- 62; Liitzelberger, Die kirchl. Tradition ἄρ. Ap. Joh., u. 5. w., 1840, 
p. 89 ff. ‘ 

4 Wann wurden, τι. s. w., p. 112 ff. 








EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 323 


carefully intimate what ecclesiastical writers according to 
the time made use of the Antilegomena (or disputed 
writings), and what has been stated as well regarding the 
collected (ἐνδιαθήκοι) and Homolegoumena (or accepted 
writings), as regarding those which are not of this kind.” ! 
The presumption, therefore, naturally is that, as Eusebius 
did not mention the fact, he did not find any reference 
to the fourth Gospel in the work of Papias. This pre- 
sumption is confirmed by the circumstance that when 
Eusebius writes, elsewhere (H. Ἐν iii. 24), of the order of 
the Gospels, and the composition of John’s Gospel, he 
has no greater authority to give for his account than 
mere tradition: “they say” (φασί. It is scarcely 
probable that when Papias collected from the Presbyter 
the facts concerning Matthew and Mark he would not 
also have inquired about the Gospel by John, had he 
known it, and recorded what he had heard, or that Euse- 
bius would not have quoted the account. 

Proceeding from this merely negative argument, Tis- 
chendorf endeavours to show that not only is Papias not 
a witness against the fourth Gospel, but that he presents 
testimony in its favour. The first reason he advances is 
that Eusebius states: “The same (Papias) made use of 
testimonies out of the first Epistle of John, and likewise 
of Peter.”? On the supposed identity of the authorship 
of the Epistle and Gospel, Tischendorf, as in the case of 
Polycarp, claims this as evidence for the fourth Gospel. 


1 Προϊούσης δὲ τῆς ἱστορίας, π οὐ ποιήσομαι σὺν ταῖς διαδοχαῖς ὑπο- 
ρο ρίας, προὔργου ποιήσομ x 

σημήνασθαι, τίνες τῶν κατὰ χρόνους ἐκκλησιαστικῶν συγγραφέων ὁποίαις κέχρηνται 
τῶν ἀντιλεγομένων, τίνα τε περὶ τῶν ἐνδιαθήκων καὶ ὁμολογουμένων γραφῶν, καὶ 
ὅσα περὶ τῶν μὴ τοιούτων αὐτοῖς εἴρηται. Husebius, ΤΙ. K., iii. 8. 

3 Κέχρηται δ᾽ 6 αὐτὸς μαρτυρίαις ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιωάννοι προτέοαςἐ τιστολῆς, καὶ 
ἀπὸ τῆς Πέτρου ὁμοίως. Husebius, H. E., iii. 39. 

Υ ἢ 


324 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


Eusebius, however, does not quote the passages upon 
which he bases this statement, and knowing his inaccu- 
racy and the hasty and uncritical manner in which he 
and the Fathers generally jump at such conclusions, we 
must reject this as sufficient evidence that Papias really 
did use the Epistle, and that Eusebius did not adopt his 
opinion from a mere superficial analogy of passages.’ — 
The fact of his reference to the Epistle at all is therefore 
doubtful, and, even if really made, the argument remains 
open as to how far it bears upon the Gospel, which we 
shall have hereafter to consider. 

The next testimony advanced by Tischendorf is indeed 
of an extraordinary character. There is a Latin MS. 
(Vat. Alex. 14) in the Vatican, which Tischendorf assigns 
to the ninth century, in which there is a preface by an 
unknown hand to the Gospel according to John, which 
commences as follows: “ Evangelium iohannis manifes- 
tatum ct datum est ecclesiis ab iohanne adhuc in corpore 
constituto, sicut papias nomine hierapolitanus discipulus 
iohannis carus in exotericis id est in extremis quinque 
libris retulit.” “The Gospel of John was published 
and given to the churches by John whilst he was still 
in the flesh, as Papias, by name of Hierapolis, an esteemed 
disciple of John, relates at the end of the fifth book.” 
Tischendorf says: ‘There can, therefore, be no more 
decided declaration made of’ the testimony of Papias for 
the Johannine Gospel.” He wishes to end the quotation 
here, and only refers to the continuation, which he is 


1 Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 17; Das Evang. Johan., p. 8; Zeller, 
Theol. Jahrb., 1845, p. 652 ff., 1847, p. 148 f.; Liitzelberger, Die kirchl. 
Tradition tib. Ap. Joh., p. 92 ff.; Davidson, Introd. N. T., il. p. 373. 

2 Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 119. 


ΠῚ 








EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 325 


obliged to admit to be untenable, in a note. The passage 
proceeds: “ Disscripsit vero evangelium dictante iohanne 
recte.” “He (Papias) indeed wrote out the Gospel, John 
duly dictating ;” then follows another passage regarding 
Marcion, representing him also as a contemporary of 
John, which Tischendorf likewise confesses to be untrue.! 
Now Tischendorf admits that the writer desires it to be 
understood that he derived the information that Papias 
wrote the fourth Gospel at the dictation of John likewise 
from the work of Papias, and as it is perfectly impossible, 
by his own admissions, that Papias, who was not a con- 
temporary of the Apostle, could have stated this, the 
whole passage is clearly fabulous and written by a.person 
who never saw the book at all. This extraordinary piece 
of evidence is so obviously absurd that it is passed over 
in silence by other critics, even of the strongest apo- 
logetic tendency, and it stands here a pitiable instance 
of the arguments to which destitute criticism can be 
reduced. 

In order to do full justice to the last of the arguments 
of Tischendorf, we shall give it in his own words: 
“Before we separate from Papias, we have’ still to 
think of one testimony for the Gospel of John which 
Trenzeus, v. 36, ὃ 2, quotes even out of the mouth of the 
Presbyters, those high authorities of Papias: ‘ And 
therefore, say they, the Lord declared: In my Father’s 
house are many mansions’ (John xiv. 2). As the Pres- 
byters set this declaration in connection with the blessed 
ness of the righteous in the City of God, in Paradise, in 
Heaven, according as they bear thirty, sixty, or one 
hundred-fold fruit, nothing is more probable than that 


? Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 119, anm. 1. 


326 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


Ireneus takes this whole declaration of the Presbyters, 
which he gives, §§ 1-2, like the preceding description 
of the thousand years’ reign, from the work of Papias. 
But whether they are derived from thenee or not, the 
authority of the Presbyters is in any case higher than 
that of Papias,” &c.1 Now in the quotation from Irenzeus 
given in this passage, Tischendorf renders the oblique 
construction of the text by inserting “say they,” referring 
to the Presbyters of Papias, and, as he does not give the 
original, he should at least have indicated that these 
words are supplementary. We shall endeavour as briefly 
as possible to state the facts of the case. 

Irenzeus, with many quotations from Scripture, is 
arguing that our bodies are preserved, and that the 
Saints who have suffered so much in the flesh shall in 
that flesh receive the fruits of their labours. In v. 33, § 2, 
he refers to the saying given in Matt. xix. 29 (Luke 
Xvill. 29, 30) that whosoever has left lands, &c., because 
of Christ shall receive a hundred-fold in this world, and 
in the next, eternal life; and then, enlarging on the 
abundance of the blessings in the Millennial kingdom, he 
affirms that Creation will be renovated, and the Earth 


1 ἘΠῚ wir aber yon Papias scheiden, haben wir noch eines Zeugnisses 
fiir das Johannesevangelium zu gedenken, das Irenidus, v. 36, 2 sogar aus 
dem Munde der Presbyter, jener hohen Autoritaten des Papias anfiihrt. 
«“« Und deshalb sagen sie habe der Herr den Ausspruch gethan: In meines 
Vaters Hause sind viele Wohnungen” (Joh. 14, 2). Da die Presbyter 
diesen Ausspruch in Verbindung setzten mit den Seligkeitsstufen der 
Gerechten in der Gottesstadt, im Paradiese, im Himmel, je nachdem sie 
dreissig- oder sechzig- oder hundertfaltig Frucht tragen, so ist nichts 
wahrscheinlicher als dass Irendéus diese ganze Aussage der Presbyter, 
die er a. a. O. 1—2 gibt, gleich der vorhergegangenen Schilderung des 
tausendjihrigen Reichs, dem Werke des Papias entlehnte. Mag sie aber 
daher stammen oder nicht, jedenfalls steht die Autoritat der Presbyter 
héher als die des Papias; ἃ. 5. w. Wann wurden, τι. 5. w., p. 119f. 








EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 327 


acquire wonderful fertility, and he adds: § 3, “As the Pres- 
byters who saw John the disciple of the Lord, remember 
that they heard from him, that the Lord taught concern- 
ing those times and said :” &c. (“Quemadmodum pres- 
byteri meminerunt, qui Joannem discipulum Domini 
viderunt, audisse se ab eo, quemadmodum de temporibus 
illis docebat Dominus, et dicebat,’ &c.), and then he 
quotes the passage: “The days will come in which 
vines will grow each having ten thousand Branches,” 
&c. ; and “ Jn like manner that a grain of wheat would 
produce ten thousand ears,’ &c. With regard to these he 
says, at the beginning of the next paragraph, v. 33, § 4, 
“These things are testified in writing by Papias, a 
hearer of John and associate of Polycarp, an ancient 
man, in the fourth of his books: for there were five books 
composed by him." And he added saying: ‘ But these 
things are credible to believers. And Judas the traitor 
not believing, and asking how shall such growths be 
effected by the Lord, the Lord said: They shall see 
who shall come to them.’ Prophesying of these times, 
therefore, Isaiah says: ‘The Wolf also shall feed with 
the Lamb, &c. &c. (quoting Isaiah xi. 6—9), and again 
he says, recapitulating : ‘Wolves and lambs shall then 
feed together, ” &c. (quoting Isaiah lxv. 25), and so on, 
continuing his argument. It is clear that Irenzeus intro- 
duces the quotation from Papias, and ending his reference 
at: “They shall see who shall come to them,” he con- 
tinues, with a quotation from Isaiah, his own train of 
reasoning. We give this passage to show the manner 


1 Eusebius has preserved the Greek of this passage (H. E., iii. 39), and 
goes on to contradict the statement of Irenzeus that Papias was a hearer 
and contemporary of the Apostles. Eusebius states that Papias in his 
preface by no means asserts that he was. 


328 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


in which Irenzeus proceeds. He then continues with the 
same subject, quoting (v. 34, 35) Isaiah, Ezékiel, Jeremiah, 
Daniel, the Apocalypse, and sayings found in the New 
Testament bearing upon the Millennium. In e¢. 35 he 
argues that the prophecies he quotes of Isaiah, Jeremiah, 
and the Apocalypse must not be allegorized away, but 
that they literally describe the blessings to be enjoyed, 
after the coming of Antichrist and the resurrection, in 
the New Jerusalem on earth, and he quotes Isaiah vi. 12, 
Ix. 5, 21, and a long passage from Baruch iv. 36, v. 9 
(which he ascribes to Jeremiah), Isaiah xlix. 16, Gala- 
tians iv. 26, Rev. xxi. 2, xx. 2—15, xxi. 1-—6, all 
descriptive, as he maintains, of the Millennial kingdom 
prepared for the Saints; and then in v. 36, the last 
chapter of his work on Heresies, as if resuming his pre- 
vious argument, he proceeds: § 1. “And that these 
things shall ever remain without end Isaiah says: ‘ For 
like as the new heaven and the new earth which I make 
remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and 
your name continue, ? and as the Presbyters say, then 
those who have been deemed worthy of living in heaven 
shall go thither, and others shall enjoy the delights of 
Paradise, and others shall possess the glory of the City ; 
for everywhere the Saviour shall be seen as those who 
see him shall be worthy. ὃ 2. But... there is this 
distinction of dwelling (εἶναι δὲ τὴν διαστολὴν ταύτην 
τῆς οἰκήσεως) * of those bearing fruit the hundred fold, 


1 We have the following passage only in the old Latin version, with 
fragments of the Greek preserved by Andrew of Czesarea in his Comment. 
in Apoc., xviil., lxiv., and elsewhere. 

2 Isaiah Ixvi. 22, Sept. 

3 Having just observed that a note in this place, in previous editions, 
has been understood as an accusation against Dr, Westcott of deliberate 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 5829 


and of the (bearers) of the sixty fold, and of the (bearers 
of) the thirty fold : of whom some indeed shall be taken 
up into the heavens, some shall live in Paradise, and 
some shall inhabit the City, and for this reason (διὰ τοῦτο 
—propter hoe) the Lord declared: In the (heavens) of 
my Father are many mansions (ἐν τοῖς Tov πατρός pov 
μονὰς εἶναι πολλάς). For all things are of God, who 
prepares for all a fitting habitation as his Word says, to . 
be allotted to all by the Father according as each is or 
shall be worthy. And this is the couch upon which they 
recline who are invited to banquet at the Wedding. The 
Presbyters disciples of the Apostles state this to be the 
order and arrangement of those who are saved, and that 
by such steps they advance,” ? &c. &e. 


falsification of the text of Irenzeus, we at once withdraw it with unfeigned 
regret that the expressions used could bear an interpretation so far from 
our intention. We desired simply to object to the insertion of ‘‘ they 
tiught” (on the Canon, p. 61, note 2) without some indication, in the 
absence of the original text, that these words are merely supplementary 
and conjectural. The source of the indirect passage is of course matter 
of argument, and we make it so, but it seems to us that the introduction 
of specific words like these, without explanation of any kind, conveys to 
ὁ 1e general reader too positive a view of the case. We may perhaps be 
permitted to say that we fully recognize Dr. Westcott’s sincere love of 
truth, and feel the most genuine respect for his character. 

1 With this may be compared John xiy. 2, ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ τοῦ πατρός μου 
μοναὶ πολλαί εἰσιν. If the passage be maintained to be from the Presbyters, 
the variations from the text of the Gospel are important. 

2... φησὶν yap ‘Hoaias “Ov τρόπον yap ὁ οὐρανὸς Kalvos καὶ ἡ γῆ καινὴ, ἃ 
ἐγὼ ποιῶ, μένει ἐνώπιον ἐμοῦ, λέγει Κύριος, οὕτω στήσεται τὸ σπέρμα ὑμῶν καὶ τὸ 
ὄνομα ὑμῶν... ᾿ ὡς οἱ πρεσβύτεροι λέγουσι, τότε καὶ οἱ μὲν καταξιωθέντες τῆς ἐν 
οὐρανῷ διατριβῆς ἐκεῖσε χωρήσουσιν, οἱ "δὲ τῆς τοῦ παραδείσου τρυφῆς ἀπολαύ- 
σουσιν, οἱ δὲ τὴν λαμπρότητα τῆς πύλεως καθέξουσιν" πανταχοῦ γὰρ ὁ Σωτὴρ 
ὁραθήσεται, καθὼς ἄξιοι ἔσονται οἱ ὁρῶντες αὐτόν. 

2. Ἐἶναι δὲ τὴν διαστολὴν ταύτην τῆς οἰκήσεως τῶν τὰ ἑκατὸν καρποφο- 
ρούντων, καὶ τῶν τὰ ἑξήκοντα, καὶ τῶν τὰ τριάκοντα" ὧν οἱ μὲν εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς 
ἀναληφθήσονται, οἱ δὲ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ διατρίψωσιν, οἱ δὲ τὴν πόλιν κατοική- 
σουσιν᾽ καὶ διὰ τοῦτο εἰρηκέναι τὸν Κύριον, ἐν τοῖς Tot πατρός μου μονὰς εἶναι 


‘ ᾿ - ~ ὁ - - , ΄ 
πολλάς * τὰ πάντα γὰρ τοῦ θεοῦ, ὃς τοῖς πᾶσι τὴν ἁρμύζουσαν οἴκησιν παρέχει. 


330 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


Now it is impossible for any one who attentively con- 
siders the whole of this passage, and who makes himself 
acquainted with the manner in which Irenzeus conducts 
his argument, and interweaves it with quotations, to 
assert that the phrase we are considering must have been 
taken from a book referred to three chapters earlier, and 
was not introduced by Irenzeus from some other source. 
In the passage from the commencement of the second 
paragraph Irenzeus enlarges upon, and illustrates, what 
“the Presbyters say” regarding the blessedness of the 
saints, by quoting the view held as to the distinction 
between those bearing fruit thirty fold, sixty fold, and 
one hundred fold,’ and the interpretation given of the 
saying regarding “ many mansions,” but the source of his 
quotation is quite indefinite, and may simply be the 
exegesis of his own day. That this is probably the case 
is shown by the continuation: “ And this is the Couch 
upon which they recline who are invited to banquet at 
the Wedding ”—an allusion to the marriage supper upon 
which Irenzeus had previously enlarged ;? immediately 
after which phrase, introduced by Irenzeus himself, he 
says: “The Presbyters, the disciples of the apostles, state 
this to be the order and arrangement of those who are 
saved,” ἄς. Now, if the preceding passages had been a 
mere quotation from the Presbyters of Papias, such a 


Quemadmodum Verbum ejus ait, omnibus divisum esse a Patre secun- 
dum quod quis est dignus, aut erit. Et hoc est triclinium, in quo recum- 
bent ii qui epulantur yocati ad nuptias. Hanc esse ad ordinationem et 
dispositionem eorum qui salyantur, dicunt presbyteri apostolorum 
discipuli, et per hujusmodi gradus proficere, &., ἄς. Jrenwus, Adv. 
Her., v. 36, §§ 1, 2. 

? Matt. xiii. 8; Mark iv. 20; cf. Matt. xxv. 14—29; Luke xix. 12— 
26 ; xu. 47, 48. 

2 Ady. Her., iv. 36, §§ 5, 6. 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 331 


remark would have been out of place and useless, but 
being the exposition of the prevailing views, Irenzeus 
confirms it and prepares to wind up the whole subject 
by the general statement that the Presbyters, the dis- 
ciples of the Apostles, affirm this to be the order and 
arrangement of those who are saved, and that by such 
steps they advance and ascend through the Spirit to the 
Son, and through the Son to the Father, &c., and a few 
sentences after he closes his work. 

In no case, however, can it be affirmed that the citation 
of “the Presbyters,” and the “ Presbyters, disciples of the 
Apostles,” is a reference to the work of Papias. When 
quoting “the Presbyters who saw John the disciple of 
the Lord,” three chapters before, Irenzeus distinctly 
states that Papias testifies what he quotes in writing in 
the fourth of his books, but there is nothing whatever 
to indicate that “ the Presbyters,” and ‘‘the Presbyters, 
disciples of the Apostles,” subsequently referred to, 
after a complete change of context, have anything to 
do with Papias. The references to Presbyters in this 
work of Jrenzeus are very numerous, and when we 
remember the importance which the Bishop of Lyons 
attached to “that tradition which comes from the 
Apostles, which is preserved in the churches by a suc- 
cession of Presbyters,”' the reference before us assumes 
a very different complexion. In one place, Irenzeus 
quotes “the divine Presbyter” (ὁ θεῖος πρεσβύτης), “ the 
God-loving Presbyter” (ὁ θεοφιλὴς πρεσβύτης), who 
wrote verses against the heretic Marcus. Elsewhere 


1 Ady. Heer., iii. 2, § 2; of. i. 10,§ 1; 27, § 1, 2; ii, 22, § 5; iii. praef. 
3, § 45 21, § 3; iv. 27,§ 15 32,§ 1; v. 20, ξ 2; 30, § 1. 
2 1Ὁ., i. 15, ὃ 6. 


332 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


he supports his extraordinary statement that the public 
career of Jesus, instead of being limited to a single 
year, extended over a period of twenty years, and that 
he was nearly fifty when he suffered,’ by the appeal: “ As 
the gospel and all the Presbyters testify, those of Asia, 
who had met with John the disciple of the Lord (stating) 
that these things were transmitted to them by John. 
For he continued among them till the times of Trajan.”? 
That these Presbyters are not quoted from the work of 
Papias is evident from the fact that Eusebius, who had 
his work, quotes the passage from Irenzeus without 
allusion to Papias, and as he adduces two witnesses only, 
Irenzeus and Clement of Alexandria, to prove the asser- 
tion regarding John, he would certainly have referred to 
the earlier authority, had the work of Papias contained 
the statement, as he does for the stories regarding the 
daughters of the Apostle Philip; the miracle in favour 
of Justus, and other matters.* We need not refer to 
Clement, nor to Polycarp, who had been “taught by 
Apostles,” and the latter of whom Irenzus knew in his 
youth. Jrenzeus in one place also gives a long account 
of the teaching of some one upon the sins of David and 
other men of old, which he introduces: “ As I have 


1 Ady. Heer., ii. 22, §§ 4, 6. 

2... sicut Evangelium, καὶ πάντες of πρεσβύτεροι μαρτυροῦσιν, of κατὰ 
τὴν ᾿Ασίαν Ἰωάννῃ τῷ τοῦ κυρίου μαθητῇ συμβεβληκότες, παραδεδωκέναι ταῦτα 
τὸν ᾿Ιωάννην. Παρέμεινε γὰρ αὐτοῖς μέχρι τῶν Τραϊανοῦ χρόνων. Ady. 
Heer., ii. 22,§ 5. Cf. Husebius, H. E., πὶ. 23. ‘* Those of Asia” evi- 
dently refers chiefly to Ephesus, as is shown by the passage immediately 
after quoted by Eusebius from Ady. Heer., ili. 3, ὃ 4, ‘‘ the Church in 
Ephesus also . . . where John continued until the times of Trajan, isa 
witness to the truth of the apostolic tradition.” 

3 Eusebius, H. E., iti. 39. 

* Ady. Her., i. 3, §§ 3,4. Fragment from his work De Ogdoade pre- 
served by Eusebius, H. E., y. 20. 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 333 


heard from a certain Presbyter, who had heard it from 
those who had seen the Apostles, and from those who 
learnt from them,”! &c. Further on, speaking evidently 
of a different person, he says: “In this manner also a 
Presbyter disciple of the Apostles, reasoned regarding the 
two Testaments :”? and quotes fully. In another place 
Trenzeus, after quoting Gen. ii. 8, “And God planted a 
Paradise eastward in Eden,” &c., states : “ Wherefore the 
Presbyters who are disciples of the Apostles (ot πρεσ- 
βύτεροι, τῶν ἀποστόλων μαθηταὶ), say that those who 
were translated had been translated thither,” there to 
remain till the consummation of: all things awaiting 
immortality, and Irenzeus explains that it was into this 
Paradise that Paul was caught up (2 Cor. xu. 4).3 It 
seems highly probable that these ‘“ Presbyters the 
disciples of the Apostles” who are quoted on Paradise, 
are the same “ Presbyters the disciples of the Apostles ”’ 
referred to on the same subject (v. 36, §$ 1,2) whom we 
are discussing, but there is nothing whatever to connect 
them with Papias. On the contrary, the Presbyters 
whose sayings Irenzeus quotes from the work of Papias 
are specially distinguished as “the Presbyters who saw 
John the disciple of the Lord,” a distinction made upon 
another occasion, quoted above, in connection with 
the age of Jesus.* He also speaks of the Septuagint 
translation of the Bible as the version of the “ Presby- 


' Quemadmodum audiyi a quodam presbytero, qui audierat ab his qui 
apostolos viderant, et ab his qui didicerant, &c. Ady. Her., iv. 27, § 1, 
cf. §2; 90,81. This has been variously conjectured to be a reference to 
Polycarp, Papias, and Pothinus his predecessor at Lyons, but it is 
admitted by all to be impossible to decide upon the point. 

? Hujusmodi quoque de duobus testamentis senior apostolorum discipu- 
lus disputabat, &c. Adv. Hoeer., iv. 32, § 1. 

3 Th, v. 5, § 1. 4 7b., ii, 22, § 5. 


334 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


ters,”! and on several occasions he calls Luke “the 
follower and disciple of the Apostles” (Sectator et 
discipulus apostolorum)*, and characterizes Mark as “ the 
interpreter and follower of Peter” (interpres et sectator 
Petri)’, and refers to both as having learnt from the 
words of the Apostles Here is, therefore, a wide 
choice of Presbyters, including even Evangelists, to 
whom the reference of Irenzeus may with equal right 
be ascribed,® so that it is unreasonable to claim it as an 
allusion to the work of Papias.® Tischendorf, however, 
does not connect the passage with much assurance with 
Papias,’ and Riggenbach fairly admits that the evidence 
fails, and few, if any, now think it worth while to 
advance it. From no point can it be considered of any 
value as testimony for the fourth Gospel. 


? Ady. Heer., iii. 21, §§ 3, 4. *16.{ 502554 1 αν 0 6 15. 34, $1, 

3 7}: iii. 10, § 6. 4 Ib., iii. 15, § 8. 

5. In the New Testament the term Presbyter is even used in reference 
to Patriarchs and Prophets. Heb. xi. 2; cf. Matt. xv. 2; Mark vii. 3, d. 

® With regard to the Presbyters quoted by Irenzeus generally. Cf. 
Routh, Relig. Sacree, 1. p. 47 ff. 

7 We have disposed of his alternative that the quotation being by ‘the 
Presbyters” was more ancient even than Papias, by showing that it may 
be referred to Irenzeus himself quoting probably from contemporaries, 
and that there is no ground for attributing it to the Presbyters at all. 
Most critics admit the uncertainty. 

8. Die Zeugnisse f. d. Ey. Johannes, 1866, p. 116. 

9 Canon Westcott affirms: ‘‘In addition to the Gospels of St. Mat- 
thew and St. Mark, Papias appears to have been acquainted with the 
Gospel of St. John.” (*) He says no more, and offers no evidence what- 
ever for this assertion in the text. There are two notes, however, on the 
same page, which we shall now quote, the second being that to which (5) 
above refers. ‘‘? No conclusion can be drawn from Eusebius’ silence as 
to express testimonies of Papias to the Gospel of St. John, as we are igno- 
rant of his special plan, and the title of his book shows that it was not 
intended to include “ all the oracles of the Lord,’ see p. 61, note 2.” The 
second note is: ‘‘* There is also (!?) an allusion to it in the quotation 
from the ‘ Elders’ found in Irenzeus (lib. vy. ad. f.) which probably was 
taken from Papias (fr. y. Routh et Nott.). The Latin passage containing 





EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 335 


Before passing on there is one other point to mention : 
Andrew of Czesarea, in the preface to his Commentary 
on the Apocalypse, mentions that Papias maintained 
“the credibility” (τὸ ἀξιόπιστον) of that book, or in 
other words, its apostolic origin.’ His strong Millenarian 
opinions would naturally make such a composition stand 
high in his esteem, if indeed it did not materially con- 
tribute to the formation of his views, which is still more 
probable. Apologists admit the genuineness of this 
statement, nay, claim it as undoubted evidence of the 
acquaintance. of Papias with the Apocalypse.? Canon 
Westcott, for instance, says: ‘He maintained, more- 
over, ‘the divine inspiration’ of the Apocalypse, and 
commented, at least, upon part of it.”* Now, he must, 
therefore, have recognized the book as the work of the 
Apostle John, and we shall, hereafter, show that it is 
impossible that the author of the Apocalypse is the 
author of the Gospel ; therefore, in this way also, Papias 


a reference to the Gospel which is published as a fragment of ‘ Papias’ by 
Grabe and Routh (fr. xi.), is taken from the ‘ Dictionary’ of a medizyal 
Papias quoted by Grabe upon the passage, and not from the present 
Papias. The ‘Dictionary’ exists in MS. both at Oxford and Cambridge. I 
am indebted to the kindness of a friend for this explanation of what seemed 
to be a strange forgery.” On the Canon, p. 65. The note 2, p. 61, referred 
to in note 2 quoted above, says on this subject: ‘‘ The passage quoted by 
Trenzus from ‘the Elders’ may probably be taken as a specimen of his 
style of interpretation” (!) and then follows a quotation: ‘as the Pres- 
byters say:” down ‘‘to many mansions.” Dr. Westcott then continues: 
‘* Indeed from the similar mode of introducing the story of the vine which 
is afterwards referred to Papias, it is reasonable to conjecture that this 
interpretation is one from Papias’ ‘ Exposition.’” We have given the 
whole of the passages to show how little evidence there is for the state- 
ment which is made. The isolated assertion in the text, which is all 
that most readers would see, is supported by no better testimony than 
that in the preceding note inserted at the foot of an earlier page. 

1 Andreas, Proleg. in Apocalypsin; Routh, Rel. Sacrae, i. p. 15. 

2 Liicke, Kinl. Offenb. Joh., 1852, ii. p. 526; Ewald, Die Joh. Schriften, 
ii. p. 371 f.; Guericke, Gesammtgesch. N. T., p. 536; Tischendor/, Wann 
wurden, τι. s. w., p. 116, &e., &e. % On the Canon, p. 65. 


336 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


is a witness against the Apostolic origin of the fourth 
Gospel. 

We must now turn to the Clementine Homilies, 
although, as we have shown,! the uncertainty as to the 
date of this spurious work, and the late period which 
must undoubtedly be assigned to its composition, render 
its evidence of very little value for the canonical Gospels. 
The passages pointed out in the Homilies as indicating 
acquaintance with the fourth Gospel were long advanced. 
with hesitation, and were generally felt to be inconclu- 
sive, but on the discovery of the concluding portion of 
the work and its publication by Dressel in 1853, it was 
found to contain a passage which apologists now claim 
as decisive evidence of the use of the Gospel, and which 
even succeeded in converting some independent critics.* 
Tischendorf* and Canon Westcott,t in the few lines 
devoted to the Clementines, do not refer to the earlier 
proof passages, but rely entirely upon that last dis- 
covered. With a view, however, to making the whole 
of the evidence clear, we shall give all of the supposed 
allusions to the fourth Gospel, confronting them with 
the text. The first is as follows :— 


Hom. 11. 82. JOHN x. 9. 

Wherefore he, being the true 
prophet, said : 

I am the gate of life: he coming I am the door (of the sheepfold), 
in through me cometh in unto life, | if anyone enter through me he shall 
as there is no other teaching which | be saved, and shall go in and shall 
is able to save. go out and shall find pasture. 

1 Vol. ii. p. 1 ff. 

2 Hilgenfeld, who had maintained that the Clementines did not use the 
fourth Gospel, was induced by the passage to which we refer to admit its 
use. Of. Die Evy. Justin’s, p. 385 ff.; Die Evangelien, p. 346 f.; Der 
Kanon, p. 29; Zeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1865, p. 338; Theol. Jahrb., 1854, 
p. 534, anm. 1; Volkmar is inclined to the same opinion, although not 
with the same decision. Theol. Jahrb., 1854, p. 448 ff. 

3 Wann wurden, τι. 8. w., p. 90 f. * On the Canon, p. 252. 








EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 337 


Hom. 11, 52. . JOHN X. 9. 
Διὰ τοῦτο αὐτὸς ἀληθὴς dv προφήτης 
ἔλεγεν" 
"Eye εἰμι ἡ πύλη τῆς ζωῆς" ὁ 80 ἐμοῦ Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ θύρα δὲ ἐμοῦ ἐάν τις 


> 
εἰσερχόμενος εἰσέρχεται εἰς τὴν ζωήν * | εἰσέλθῃ, σωθήσεται, καὶ εἰσελεύσεται 
ε > aA 
ws οὐκ οὔσης ἑτέρας τῆς σώζειν δυνα- | καὶ ἐξελεύσεται καὶ νομὴν evpnoet 
La 
μένης διδασκαλίας. 





The first point which is apparent here is that there is a 
total difference both in the language and real meaning 
of these two passages. The Homily uses the word πύλη 
instead of the θύρα of the Gospel, and speaks of the 
gate of life, stead of the door of the Sheepfold. We 
have already’ discussed the passage in the Pastor of 
Hermas in which similar reference is made to the gate 
(πύλη) into the kingdom of God, and need not here 
repeat our argument. In Matt. vii. 13, 14, we have 
the direct description of the gate (πύλη) which leads to 
life (εἰς τὴν ζωήν), and we have elsewhere quoted the 
Messianic Psalm exviii. 19, 20: ‘ This is the gate of the 
Lord (αὕτη ἡ πύλη τοῦ Kupiov),” the righteous shall enter 
into it.” In another place, the author of the Homilies, 
referring to a passage parallel to, but differing from, Matt. 
xxiii. 2, which we have elsewhere considered,’? and which 
is derived from a Gospel different from ours, says: “ Hear 
them (Scribes and Pharisees who sit upon Moses’ seat), 
he said, as entrusted with the key of the kingdom which 
is knowledge, which alone is able to open the gate of 
life (πύλη THs ζωῆς), through which alone is the entrance 
to Eternal life.”* Now in the very next chapter to that 
in which the saying which we are discussing occurs, a 
very few lines after it indeed, we have the following 
passage: “ Indeed he said further: ‘I am he concern- 


1 p, 257 f. 2 Ps. exyii. 20, Sept. ὃν, 18 ff. 
4 jfom. i, 18, 
VoL. 11. ἅ 


338 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


ing whom Moses prophesied, saying: ‘a prophet shall 
the Lord our God wake up to you from among your 
brethren like also unto me; hear ye him regarding all 
things, but whosoever will not hear that prophet he 
shall die.”’”! There is no such saying in the canonical 
Gospels or other books of the New Testament attri- 
buted to Jesus, but a quotation from Deuteronomy 
xvii. 15 ἢ, materially different from this, occurs twice 
in the Acts of the Apostles, once being put into the 
mouth of Peter applied to Jesus,? and the second time 
also applied to him, being quoted ‘by Stephen? It is 
quite clear that the writer is quoting from uncanonical 
sources, and here is another express declaration regard- 
ing himself: “I am he,’ &c, which is quite in the 
spirit of the preceding passage which we are discussing, 
and probably derived from the same source. In another 
place we find the following argument: “ But the way 
is the manner of life, as also Moses says: ‘Behold I 
have set before thy face the way of life, and the way of 
death’* and in agreement the teacher said: ‘Enter ye 
through the narrow and straitened way through which 
ye shall enter into life ;’ and in another place a certain 
person inquiring: ‘What shall I do to inherit eternal 
life τ᾿ he intimated the Commandments of the Law.’’® 
It has to be observed that the Homilies teach the doctrine 


1 "Exc μὴν ἔλεγεν᾽ ᾿Εγώ εἶμι περὶ οὗ Μωῦσῆς προεφήτευσεν εἰπών * Προφήτην 
᾽ -“ς “5 , ς bY ae. > ~ > ~ e. ψὲ oe RES SS > - 
ἐγερεῖ ὑμῖν Κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν, ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ὑμῶν, ὥσπερ καὶ ἐμὲ, αὐτοῦ 
> , 4 ,ὕ .ο a a δὲ 3 > , ~ , > ,’ 5 οθα ~ 
ἀκούετε κατὰ πάντα᾽ ὃς ἂν δὲ μὴ ἀκούσῃ Tov προφήτου ἐκείνου, ἀποθανεῖται. 
Hom. iii. 53. This differs from the text-of the Sept. 

2 Acts iii. 22. 8 Acts vii. 37. 4 Deut. xxx. 15. 

- © ‘Odds δὲ ἡ πολιτεία. ἐστὶν, τῷ καὶ τὸν Μωῦσῆν λέγειν . ᾿Ιδοὺ τέθεικα πρὸ 
προσώπου σου τὴν ὁδὸν τῆς ζωῆς, καὶ τὴν ὁδὸν τοῦ θανάτου. Καὶ ὁ διδάσκαλος 
συμφώνως εἶπεν Εἰσέλθετε διὰ τῆς στενῆς καὶ τεθλιμμένης ὁδοῦ, δι᾿ ἧς εἱσελεύ- 
ΕῚ 4, U 4 > a 7 , , ὸ ΄ 2 4 
σεσθε eis τὴν Conv. Καὶ ἀλλαχοῦ που, ἐρωτήσαντός τινος Ti ποιήσας ζωὴν 
αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω ; τὰς τοῦ νόμου ἐντολὰς ὑπέδειξεν. Hom. xviii. 17, 





EXTERNAL- EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 339 


that the spirit in Jesus Christ had already appeared in 
Adam, and by a species of transmigration passed through 
Moses and the Patriarchs and prophets : “ which from the 
beginning of the world, changing names as well as forms, 
has traversed the present order of nature (τὸν αἰῶνα τρέχει) 
until, attaining his own times, being anointed on account 
of his labours by the mercy of God, he shall have rest for 
ever.”’! Just in the same way, therefore, as the Homilies 
represent Jesus as quoting a prophecy of Moses, and 
altering it to a personal declaration : “ I am the prophet,” 
&c., so here again they make him adopt this saying of 
Moses and, “ being the true prophet,” declare : “Iam the 
gate or the way of life,”—the same commandments of the 
law which the Gospel of the Homilies represents Jesus 
as coming to confirm and not to abolish. The whole 
system of doctrine of the Clementines, as we shall pre- 
sently see, indicated here even by the definition of “the 
true prophet,” is so fundamentally opposed to that of the 
fourth Gospel that it is impossible that the author can 
have derived this brief saying, varying moreover as it 
does in language and sense, from that work. There is 
good reason to believe that the author of the fourth 
Gospel, who most undeniably derived materials from 
earlier Evangelical works, may have drawn from a source 
likewise used by the Gospel according to the Hebrews, 
and thence many analogies might well be presented with 
quotations from that or kindred Gospels.2 We find, 
further, this community of source in the fact, that in the 


1. ὃς ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς αἰῶνος ἅμα τοῖς ὀνόμασι μορφὰς ἀλλάσσων τὸν αἰῶνα 
τρέχει, μέχρις ὅτε ἰδίων χρόνων τυχὼν, διὰ τοὺς καμάτους θεοῦ ἐλέει χρισθεὶς, εἰς 
ἀεὶ ἕξει τὴν ἀνάπαυσιν. Hom, iii. 20. 

2 Neander, K. G., 1848, ii, p. 6024 ἢν, anm.1; Credner, Beitriige, i. p, 
326; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p, 59 f. ; Das Ey. Johan,, p. 12. 

42 


340 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION, 


fourth Gospel, without actual quotation, there is a refer- 
ence to Moses, and, no doubt, to the very passage 
(Deut. xviii. 15), which the Gospel of the Clementines 
puts into the mouth of Jesus, John v. 46: “ For had ye 
believed Moses ye would believe me, for he wrote of 
me.” Whilst the Ebionitic Gospel gave prominence to 
this view of the case, the dogmatic system of the Logos 
Gospel did not permit of more than mere reference to it. 
There are abundant indications in this case that the 
fourth Gospel was not the source of this saying, and 
every probability that the Ebionitic author of the 
Clementines made use of the Ebionitic Gospel. 

The same remarks fully apply to the next passage 
pointed out as derived from the Johannine Gospel, which 
occurs in the same chapter: “ My sheep hear my voice.” 


Hom. 11. 52. _ JOHN X. 27. 

Ta ἐμὰ πρόβατα ἀκούει τῆς ἐμῆς Τὰ πρόβατα τὰ ἐμὰ τῆς φωνῆς μου 
φωνῆς. ἀκούει. 
There was no more common representation amongst the 
Jews of the relation between God and his people than 
that of Shepherd and his Sheep,' and the brief saying 
was in all probability derived from the same source as 
the preceding.” 

We have already discussed the third passage regarding 
the new birth in connection with Justin,* and may there- 
fore pass on to the last and most important passage, to 
which we have referred as contained in the concluding 
portion of the Homilies first published by Dressel in 
1853. We subjoin it in contrast with the parallel in the 
fourth Gospel, 

1 Of. Isaiah xl. 11; hii. 6; Ezek. xxxiv.; Zech. xi.; Hebrews xiii. 20. 


2 Oredner, Beitaige, i. p. 826; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 60; Das 
Evang, Johan., p. 12, 8 p. 312 ἢ, 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 341 


Hom. ΧΙΧΣ. 22. 

Wherefore also our Teacher when 
we inquired regarding the man 
blind from birth and whose sight 
was restored by him, if this man 
had sinned or his parents that he 
should be born blind, answered: 
Neither this man sinned at all nor 
his parents, but that through him 
the power of God might be made 
manifest who heals the sins of 
ignorance. 

“Obey καὶ διδάσκαλος ἡμῶν περὶ τοῦ 
ἐκ γενετῆς πηροῦ καὶ ἀναβλέψαντος 
map αὐτοῦ ἐξετάζων ἐρωτήσασιν, εἰ 
οὗτος ἥμαρτεν ἢ οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ, ἵνα 
τυφλὸς γεννηθῇ, ἀπεκρίνατο: οὔτε οὗτός 
τι ἥμαρτεν, οὔτε οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ 
ἵνα δι αὐτοῦ φανερωθῇ ἡ δύναμις τοῦ 
θεοῦ τῆς ἀγνοίας ἰωμένη τὰ ἁμαρτήματα. 





JOHN Ix. 1—3. 

And as he was passing by, he 
saw a man blind from bith. 

2. And his disciples asked him 
saying: Rabbi, who sinned, this 
man or his parents that he should 
be born blind ? 

3. Jesus answered, Neither this 
man sinned, nor his parents, but 
that the works of God might be 
made manifest in him. 


1. Καὶ παράγων εἶδεν ἄνθρωπον 
τυφλὸν ἐκ γενετῆς. 2. Καὶ ἠρώτησαν 
αὐτὸν οἱ μαθηταὶ 


αββεί, τίς ἥμαρτεν, οὗτος ἢ οἱ γονεῖς 


> - ,΄ 
αὐτοῦ λέγοντες" 


αὐτοῦ, ἵνα τυφλὸς γεννηθῇ ; ὃ. ᾿Απεκρίθη 
3 a EY ks Ὁ“ ἮΝ͵ of 
Inoovs* Οὔτε οὗτος ἥμαρτεν οὔτε οἱ 
γονεῖς αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα φανερωθῇ τὰ 


»», i a a 3 > a 
ἔργα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ. 


It is necessary that we should consider the context to 
this passage in the Homily, which, we must affirm, bears 
positive characteristics which render it impossible that it 
can have been taken from the fourth Gospel, and lead to 
the clear conclusion that, at the most, the Johannine 
Gospel derived it from the same source as the Gospel of 
the Clementines, if not from that Gospel itself. We 
must mention that in the Clementines, the Apostle Peter 
is represented as maintaining that the Scriptures are not 
all true, but are mixed up with what is false, and that 
on this account, and in order to inculcate the necessity 
of distinguishing between the true and the false, Jesus 
taught his disciples, “ Be ye approved money changers,”! 
an injunction not found in our Gospels. 

One of the points which Peter denies is the fall of 
Adam, a doctrine which, as Neander remarked, “he must 


1 Hom. iii, 50, οἵ, 9, 42 ff.; ii. 88, The author denies that Moses wrote 
the Pentateuch, Hom. iii, 47 ff, 


32 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


combat as blasphemy.”' At the part we are considering 
he is discussing with Simon,—under whose detested per- 
sonality, as we have elsewhere shown, the Apostle Paul 
is really attacked,—and refuting the charges he brings 
forward regarding the origin and continuance of evil. 
The Apostle Peter in the course of the discussion asserts 
that evil is the same as pain and death, but evil does not 
exist eternally, and, indeed, does not really exist at all, 
for pain and death are only accidents without permanent 
force—pain is merely the disturbance of harmony, and 
death nothing but the separation of soul from body.? 
The passions also must be classed amongst the things 
which are accidental, and are not always to exist; but 
these, although capable of abuse, are in reality beneficial 
to the soul when properly restrained, and carry out the 
will of God. The man who gives them unbridled course 
ensures his own punishment.* Simon inquires why men 
die prematurely and periodical diseases come, and also, 
indeed, visitations of demons and of madness and other 
afflictions, in reply to which Peter explains that parents 
by following their own pleasure in all things and neglect- 


1 Hom. ii. 20 ff., 42 ff., viii. 10. ‘‘ Die Lehre von einem Siindenfalle 
des ersten Menschen musste der Verfasser der Clementinen als Gottes- 
listerung bekimpfen.” Neander, K. G., ii. p.612f. The Jews at that 
period held a similar belief. Hisenmenger, Entd. Judenthum, i p. 336. 
Adam, according to the Homilies not only did not sin, but as a true prophet 
possessed of the Spirit of God which afterwards was in Jesus, he was in- 
capable of sin. Schliemann, Die Clementinen, p. 130, p. 176 f., p. 178f. 

? Hom. xix. 20. 

3 Hom. xix. 21. According to the author of the Clementines, Evil is 
the consequence of sin, and is on one hand necessary for the punishment 
of sin, but on the other beneficial as leading men to improvement and up- 
ward progress. Suffering is represented as wholesome, and intended for 
the elevation of man. Cf. Hom., ii. 13; vii. 2; viii. 11. Death was ori- 
ginally designed for man, and was not introduced by Adam’s “ fall,” but 
is really necessary to nature, the Homilist considers. Cf. Schliemann, 
Die Clementinen, p. 177, p. 168 f. 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 343 


ing proper sanitary considerations, produce a multitude 
of evils for their children, and this either through care- 
lessness or ignorance.’ And then follows the passage we 
are discussing : “ Wherefore also our Teacher,” &c., and 
at the end of the quotation he continues: “and truly 
such afflictions ensue in consequence of ignorance,” and 
giving an instance,? he proceeds: “ Now the afflictions 
which you before mentioned are the consequence of © 
ignorance, and certainly not ef wickedness, which has 
been committed,”* &c. Now it is quite apparent that 
the peculiar variation from the parallel in the fourth 
Gospel in the latter part of the quotation is not acci- 
dental, but is the point upon which the whole propriety 
of the quotation depends. In the Gospel of the Clemen- 
tines the man is not blind from his birth, “that the works 
of God might be made manifest in him,’—a doctrine 
which would be revolting to the author of the Homilies,— 
but the calamity has befallen him in consequence of some 
error of ignorance on the part of his parents which brings 
its punishment; but “the power of God” is made 
manifest in healing the sins of ignorance. The reply of 
Jesus is a professed quotation, and it varies very sub- 
stantially from the parallel in the Gospel, presenting 
evidently a distinctly different version of the episode. 
The substitution of πηρός for τυφλός in the opening 
is also significant, more especially as Justin likewise in 
his general remark, which we have discussed, uses the 
same word. Assuming the passage in the fourth Gospel 
to be the account of a historical episode, as apologists, of 


1 Hom. xix. 22. 

2 Καὶ ἀληθῶς ἀγνοίας αἰτίᾳ τὰ τοιαῦτα γίνεται, ἤτοι τῷ μὴ εἰδέναι πότε δεῖ 
κοινωνεῖν τῇ γαμετῇ, εἰ καθαρὰ ἐξ ἀφέδρου τυγχάνει. Hom. xix. 22. 

3 Πλὴν ἃ π ροείρηκας πάθη δε ἀγνοίας ἀστὶν, οὐ μέντοι ἐκ πονηροῦ εἰργασμένου. 
Hom. xix. 22.. 


934 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


course, maintain, the case stands thus :—The author of 
the Homilies introduces a narrative of a historical inci- 
dent in the life of Jesus, which may have been, and 
probably was, reported in many early gospels in language 
which, though analogous to, is at the same time decidedly 
different, in the part which is a professed quotation, 
from that of the fourth Gospel, and presents another and 
natural comment upon the central event. The reference 
to the historical incident is, of course, no evidence what- 
ever of dependence on the fourth Gospel, which, although 
it may be the only accidentally surviving work which 
contains the narrative, had no prescriptive and exclusive 
property in it, and so far from the partial agreement in 
the narrative proving the necessary use of the fourth 
Gospel, the only remarkable point is, that all narratives 
of the same event and reports of words actually spoken 
do not more perfectly agree, while, on the other hand, 
the very decided variation in the reply of Jesus, accord- 
ing to the Homily, from that given in the fourth Gospel 
leads to the distinct presumption that it is not the source 
of the quotation. It is perfectly preposterous to assert 
that a reference to an actual occurrence, without. the 
slightest indication by the author of the source from 
which he derived his information, must be dependent on 
one particular work, more especially when the part which 
is given as distinct quotation substantially differs from 
the record in that work. We have already illustrated 
this on several occasions, and may once more offer an 
instance. If the first Synoptic had unfortunately 
perished, like so many other gospels of the early Church, 
and in the Clementines we met with the quotation : 
“ Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom 
of heaven” (Μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι, ὅτι αὐτῶν 


EXTERNAL.EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 345 


ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν), apologists would certainly 
assert, upon the very principle upon which they act in 
the present case, that this quotation was clear evidence 
of the use of Luke vi. 20: “ Blessed are ye poor, for 
yours is the kingdom of God” (Μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοΐ, 
ὅτι ὑμετέρα ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ), more especially 
as a few codices actually insert τῷ πνεύματι, the slight 
variations being merely ascribed to free quotation from 
memory. In point of fact, however, the third Synoptic 
might not at the time have been in existence, and the quo- 
tation might have been derived, as it is, from Matt. v. 3. 
Nothing is more certain and undeniable than the fact 
that the author of the fourth Gospel made use of mate- 
rials derived from oral tradition and earlier records for 
its composition. It is equally undeniable that other 
gospels, such as the Gospel according to the Hebrews 
and.our Synoptics, had access to the same materials, and 
made use of them; and a comparison of our first three 
Gospels renders very evident the community of materials, 
including the use of the one by the other, as well as the 
diversity of literary handling to which those materials 
were subjected. It is impossible with reason to deny that 
the Gospel according to the Hebrews, for instance, as 
well as other earlier evangelical works now lost, drew 
from the same sources as the fourth Gospel, and that 
narratives derived from the one may, therefore, present 
analogies with the other whilst still perfectly inde- 
pendent.? Such evidence as that which apologists 
attempt to deduce from the Clementine Homilies totally 

! Ewald, Jahrb. bibl. Wiss., 1849, p. 196 ff., 1851, p. 164, p. 166, anm. 
2; Die Joh. Schriften., 1861, i. p. 24 f.; Bleck, Beitriige, 1846, p. 268 f. ; 
Einl. N. T., p. 308 f.; Hilgenfeld, Die Evangelion, p. 325 ff.; De Wette, 


Finl. N. T., p. 209 f. 
2 Neander, K. G., ii. p. 624 f., anm. 1. 


346 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


fails to prove even the existence of the fourth Gospel, 
and were it fifty times more powerful, it could do nothing 
towards establishing its historical character and apostolic 
origin. | 

Leaving, however, these few and feeble analogies by 
which apologists vainly seek to establish the existence of 
the fourth Gospel and its use by the author of the 
pseudo-Clementine Homilies, and considering the ques- 
tion for a moment from a wider point of view, the 
results already attained are more than confirmed, The 
doctrines held and strongly enunciated in the Clementines 
seem to us to render it impossible that the author can 
have made use of a work so fundamentally at variance 
with all his views as the fourth Gospel, and it is abso- 
lutely certain that, holding those opinions, he could not 
in any case have regarded such a Gospel as an apostolic 
and authoritative document. Space will not permit our 
entering adequately into this argument, and we must 
refer our readers to works more immediately devoted to 
the examination of the Homilies for a close analysis of 
their dogmatic teaching,’ but we may in the briefest 
manner point out some of their more prominent doctrines 
in contrast with those of the Johannine Gospel. 

One of the leading and most characteristic ideas of 
the Clementine Homilies is the essential identity of 
Judaism and Christianity. Christ revealed nothing new 


1 Schliemann, Die Clementinen, 1844, p. 130—229; Uhlhorn, Die 
Homilien und Recogn., 1854, p. 153—230; Credner, Winer’s Zeitschr. 
wiss. Theol., 1829, i. h. 2, p. 237 ff.; Dorner, Entw. Gesch. der Lehre 
y. ἃ. Person Christi, i. p. 324 ff.; αι", Gesch. chr. Kirche, i. p. 85 ff., 
p. 218 ff.; Chr. Gnosis, p. 300 ff.; Tiib. Zeitschr., 1831, iv. p. 114 ff., 
p. 174 ff., 1836, iii. p. 123 ff., p. 182 ff; Neander, K. G., ii. p. 610 ff., 
Genet. Entw. d. Gnost. Systeme, Beilage, p. 361 ff; Schwegler, Das 
nachap. Zeit., i. p. 363 ff.; Der Montanismus, 1841, p. 145 ff. 


EXTERNAL. EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 347 


with regard to God, but promulgated the very same 
truth concerning him as Adam, Moses, and the Pa- 
triarchs, and in fact the right belief is that Moses 
and Jesus were essentially one and the same.’ Indeed 
it may be said that the teaching of the Homilies is more 
Jewish than Christian.? In the preliminary Epistle 
of the Apostle Peter to the Apostle James, when send- 
ing the book, Peter entreats that James will not give 
it to any of the Gentiles? and James says: “ Strictly 
and rightly our Peter reminded us, regarding the estab- 
lishment of the truth, that we should not communicate 
the books of his preachings sent to us to any one 
at random, but to him who is good and pious and 
desires to teach, and who is cirewmcised,* being faithful,”® 
&c. Clement also is represented as describing his con- 
version to Christianity in the following terms: “ For 
this cause I fled for refuge to the Holy God and Law of 
the Jews, with faith in the certain conclusion that the 
Law was established out of the righteous judgment of 
God, and that every soul must hereafter receive according 
to its deserts.”® Peter recommends the inhabitants of 
Tyre to follow what are really Jewish rites, and to hear 


1 Hom. xvii. 4 ; xviii. 14; viii. 6; Schliemann, Die Clem., p. 215 ff. ; 
Dorner, Lehre Pers. Christi, i. p. 325, p. 848 ff.; Schwegler, Das nachap. 
Zeit., i. p. 365 ff., p. 379 ff.; Baur, K. G., i. p. 85 ff. ; Uhlhorn, Die 
Homilien, p. 212; Neander, K. G., ii. p. 611 ff., p. 621 ff. 

2 Dorner, Lehre Pers. Christi, i. p. 325; Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., 
1, p. 365. 

3 Ep. Petri ad Jacob. ὃ 1. * Of. Galatians, ii. 7. 

5 Avayxaiws καὶ πρεπόντως περὶ τῆς ἀληθείας ἀσφαλίζεσθαι ὁ ἡμέτερος ὑπέμνησε 
Πέτρος, ὅπως τὰς τῶν αὐτοῦ κηρυγμάτων διαπεμφθείσας ἡμῖν βίβλους μηδενὶ 
μεταδώσωμεν ὡς ἔτυχεν, ἢ ἀγαθῷ τινι καὶ εὐλαβεῖ, τῷ καὶ διδάσκειν αἱρουμένῳ 
ἐμπεριτόμῳ τε ὄντι πιστῷ, κιτιλ. Contestatio, § 1. 

® Διὰ τοῦτο ἐγὼ τῷ ἁγίῳ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων θεῷ καὶ νόμῳ προσέφυγον, ἀποδεδωκὼς 
τὴν πίστιν ἀσφαλεῖ τῇ κρίσει, ὅτι ἐκ τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ δικαίας κρίσεως καὶ νόμος 
ὥρισται, καὶ ἣ ψυχὴ πάντως τὸ κατ᾽ ἀξίαν ὧν ἔπραξεν ὁπουδήποτε ἀπολαμβάνει. 
Hom. iy. 


348 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION, 


“as the God-fearing Jews have heard.”! The Jew has 
the same truth as the Christian: “For as there is one 
teaching by both (Moses and Jesus), God accepts him 
who believes either of these.”? The Law was in fact 
given by Adam as a true prophet knowing all things, 
and it is called “ Eternal,’ and neither to be abro- 
gated by enemies nor falsified by the impious? The 
author, therefore, protests against the idea that Chis- 
tianity is any new thing, and insists that Jesus came to 
confirm, not abrogate, the Mosaic Law.t On the other 
hand the author of the fourth Gospel represents 
Christianity in strong contrast and antagonism to 
Judaism.® In his antithetical system, the religion of 
Jesus is opposed to Judaism as well as all other belief, as 
Light to Darkness and Life to Death.6 The Law which 
Moses gave is treated as merely national, and neither οὗ. 
general application nor intended to be permanent, being 
only addressed to the Jews. It is perpetually referred to 
as the “Law of the Jews,” “your Law,’—and the 
Jewish festivals as Feasts of the Jews, and Jesus neither 


1 ὡς of θεὸν σέβοντες ἤκουσαν ᾿Ιουδαῖοι. Hom. vii. 4; cf. 11. 19, 20; 
xiii. 4; Schliemann, Die Clementinen, p. 221 f.; Schwegler, Das nachap. 
Zeit., i. p. 368 ff. 

2 Μιᾶς yap δι’ ἀμφοτέρων διδασκαλίας οὔσης τὸν τούτων τινὶ πεπιστευκότα ὁ 
θεὸς ἀποδέχεται. Hom. viii. 6, cf. 7; Uhlhorn, Die Homilien, p. 212; 
Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., i. p. 366 f. ; Schlienann, Die Clementinen, 
p. 221 f. 

3 Hom. viii. 10. 

4 Hom. iii. 51; Dorner, Lehre Pers. Christi, i. p. 325; Schwegler, Das 
nachap. Zeit., i. p. 366. 

5 Késtlin, Lehrbegriff des Ev. u. Br. Johannes, 1843, p. 40 ff., p. 48 ff. ; 
Hilgenfeld, Die Evangelien, p. 330 ff.; Das Evang. u. ἃ. Br. Joh., p. 
188 ff.; Baur, Unters. kan. Evy., p. 311 ff., p. 327; Schwegler, Das 
nachap. Zeit., ii. p. 292 f., p. 359 ff; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 276, 
note 1. 

6 John xii. 46; i. 4, 5, 7 ff.; iii. 19—21; v. 24; viii. 12; ix. 5; xii. 
35 ff.; xiv. 6; Késtlin, Lehrb. Ey. Joh., p. 40 f.; Hilgenfeld, Die Evan- 
gelien, p. 330 f. 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 349 


held the one in any consideration nor did he scruple to 
shew his indifference to the other.!. The very name of 
“the Jews” indeed is used as an equivalent for the 
enemies of Christ.?/ The religion of Jesus is not only 
absolute, but it communicates knowledge of the Father 
which the Jews did not previously possess. The infe- 
riority of Mosaism is everywhere represented : “and out 
of his fulness all we received, and grace for grace. 
Because the Law was given through Moses; grace and 
truth came through Jesus Christ.”* “Verily verily I 
say unto you: Moses did not give you the bread from 
heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from 
heaven.”® The fundamental difference of Christianity 
from Judaism will further appear as we proceed. 

The most essential principle of the Clementines, again, is 
Monotheism,—the absolute oneness of God,—which the 
author vehemently maintains as well against the ascrip- 
tion of divinity to Christ as against heathen Polytheism 
and the Gnostic theory of the Demiurge as distinguished 
from the Supreme God.° Christ not only is not God, 
but he never asserted himself to be 50.7 He knows 


1 John ii, 13; iv. 20; v. 1, 16, 18; vi 43 vii. 2,.19; 22; Viii, 17; 
ix. 16, 28, 29; x. 84; xv. 25, ζο. Hilgenfeld, Die Evangelien, p. 330 ff. 
Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., ii. p. 364 f.; Baur, Theol. Jahrb., 1844, 4, 
Ῥ. 624. 

2 John vi. 42, 52, &., ἄο. Fischer, Tub. Zeitschr., 1840, h. 2, p. 96 f.; 
Baur, Unters. kan. Evy., p. 163, p. 317 f.; Hilgenfeld, Die Evang. Joh., 
Ρ. 193 f.; Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., ii. p. 360 f. 

8 John i. 18; viii. 19, 31 ff., 54, 55; xy. 21 ἢ: xvii. 25, 26. 

4 John i, 16, 17; cf. x. 1, 8. 5 John yi. 32 ff, 

, © Hom. xvi. 15 ff.; ii, 12; iii, 57, 59; x. 19; xiii. 4; Schliemann, Die 
Olementinen, p. 130, p. 134 ff. ; 144 f., 200; Dorner, Lehre Pers. Christi, 
1. p. 296 ff., p. 325 f., p. 343 ff; Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., i. p. 367, 
p. 376 f.; cf. ii. p. 270 ff.; Der Montanismus, p. 148 ff.; Bawr, Gnosis, 
p. 380 ff.; Uhlhorn, Die Hom. u. Recogn., p. 167 ff. ; Hilgenfeld, Das Ey. 
Johan, p. 286 f. 

ἢ Hom, xyi. 18 f, 


350 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


nothing of the doctrine of the Logos, but his speculation 
is confined to the Σοφία, the Wisdom of Proverbs viil., 
&c., and is, as we shall see, at the same time a less deve- 
loped and very different doctrine from that of the fourth 
Gospel! The idea of a hypostatic Trinity is quite 
unknown to him, and would have been utterly abhorrent 
to his mind as sheer Polytheism. On the other hand, 
the fourth Gospel proclaims the doctrine of a hypostatic 
Trinity in a more advanced form than any other writing 
of the New Testament. It is, indeed, the fundamental 
principle of the work,” as the doctrine of the Logos is its 
most characteristic feature. In the beginning the Word 
not only was with God, but “God was the Word” (θεὸς 
ἦν ὁ Λόγος). He is the “only begotten God” (povo- 
γενὴς Oeds),* equivalent to the “Second God” (δεύτερος 
θεός) of Philo, and, throughout, his absolutely divine 
nature is asserted both by the Evangelist, and in express 
terms in the discourses of Jesus.° Nothing could be 
more opposed to the principles of the Clementines. 
According to the Homilies, the same Spirit, the Σοφία, 
appeared in Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, 
Moses, and finally in Jesus, who are the only “ true pro- 
phets” and are called the seven Pillars (ἑπτὰ στῦλοι) of 


1 Dorner, Lehre Pers. Christi, i. p. 334; Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., 
ii. p. 294 ἢ. 

2 Késtlin, Lehrbegriff, p. 56 f., 83 ff.; Reuss, Hist. de la Théol. Chré- 
tienne au siécle apost., 1864, ii. p. 435 ff.; Hilgenfeld, Das Ey. Joh., 
p. 113 ff. ; Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., 11. p. 369 ff. 

3 Johni. 1. 

4 John i. 18. Thisis the reading of the Cod. Sinaiticus, of the Cod. 
Vaticanus, and Cod. C., as well as of other ancient MSS., and it must be 
accepted as the best authenticated. 

"σοῦ, 2; vy. 17 ff. : x. 30 ff, 38; xrv. 7 £, 23; xviil..G, 21 fi, &. ; 
Késtlin, Lehrbegriff, p. 45 f., 55, 89 ff.; Ewald, Die Joh. Schriften, i. 
p. 116 ff.; Hilgenfeld, Das Ev. Joh., p. 84 ff.; Baur, Unters. kan, Evy., 
Ὁ, 312 ff.; Reuss, Hist. Théol. Chrét., i. p. 435. 





EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL, 351 


the world.!| These seven? persons, therefore, are identi- 
cal, the same true Prophet and Spirit “which from the 
beginning of the world, changing names as well as forms, 
has traversed the present order of nature” *.and these men 
were thus essentially the same as Jesus. As Neander 
rightly observes, the author of the Homilies “saw in 
Jesus a new appearance of that Adam whom he had 
ever venerated as the source of all the true and divine 
in man.”> We need scarcely point out how different 
these views are from the Logos doctrine of the fourth 
Gospel.® In other points there is an equally wide gulf 
between the Clementines and the fourth Gospel. Accord- 
ing to the author of the Homilies, the chief dogma of 
true Religion is Monotheism. Belief in Christ, in the 
specific Johannine sense, is nowhere inculcated, and where 
belief is spoken of, it is merely belief in God. No dog- 
matic importance whatever is attached to faith in Christ 
or to his sufferings, death, and resurrection, and of the 


1 Hom. iii. 20 f.; ii. 15; viii. 10; xvii. 4; xviii. 14. 

2 Credner considers that only Adam, Moses, and Christ are recognized 
as identical (W. Zeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1829, 1 h. 2, p. 247 ff.), and so 
also Uhihorn (Die Homilien, p. 164 ff.) ; Gfrérer thinks the idea limited 
to Adam and Christ (Jahrh. des Heils, i. p. 337), The other authorities 
referred to below in note 4 hold to the seven. 

3 Hom. iii, 20. 

4 Schliemann, Die Clementinen, pp. 130, 141 ff., 176, 194 ff., 199 f. ; 
Dorner, Lehre Pers. Christi, i. pp. 332, 335 ff.; Meander, K. G., ii. pp. 
612 ff., 621; Genet. Entw. Gnost. Syst., p. 380; as also, with the sole 
difference as to number, the authorities quoted in note 2. 

5 K, G., ii. p. 622 ; ef. Hom. iii. 18 ff. 

6 It is very uncertain by what means the author of the Homilies con- 
sidered this periodical reappearance to be effected, whether by a kind of 
transmigration or otherwise. Critics consider it very doubtful whether 
he admitted the supernatural birth of Jesus (though some hold it to be 
probable), but at any rate he does not explain the matter. Uhihorn, Die 
Homilien, p. 209 f.; Neander, K. G., ii. p. 618, anm. 1; Credner thought 
that he did not admit it, 1. 6. p. 253; Schliemann, whilst thinking that he 
did admit it, considers that in that case he equally attributed a super- 
natural birth to the other seyen prophets. Die Clementinen, p. 207 ff 


352 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


doctrines of Atonement and Redemption there is nothing 
in the Homilies,"—every one must make his own recon- 
ciliation with God, and bear the punishment of his own 
sins, On the other hand, the representation of Jesus 
as the Lamb of God taking away the sins of the world, 
is the very basis of the fourth Gospel. The passages are 
innumerable in which belief in Jesus is insisted upon as 
essential, ‘ He that believeth in the Son hath eternal 
life, but he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, 
but the wrath of God abideth on him”*.... “for if 
ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.”® 
In fact, the whole of Christianity according to the author 
of the fourth Gospel is concentrated in the possession 
of faith in Christ. Belief in God alone is never held to 
be sufficient ; belief in Christ is necessary for salvation ; 
he died for the sins of the world, and is the object of 
faith, by which alone forgiveness and justification before 
God can be secured.’ The same discrepancy is apparent 
in smaller details. In the Clementines the Apostle Peter 
is the principal actor, and is represented as the chief 
amongst the Apostles. In the Epistle of Clement to 
James, which precedes the Homilies, Peter is described 
in the following terms: “Simon, who, on account of the 
true faith and of the most immoveable establishment of 


1 Schliemann, ἐδ... p. 217 ff; Uhthorn, ib., p. 211 f.; Dorner, Lehre 
Pers. Chr., i. p. 838 f. ; Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., i. p. 367 f. 

3 Hom. 1]. 6 f.; Uhlhorn, ib., p. 212. 

8 John 1. 29; cf. iii. 14 ff., iv. 42, &., &e. 

4 John iii. 36; cf. 16 f. 6 Tb., viii. 24. 

6 Jb., iii. 14 ff.; γ. 24 ff.; vi. 29, 35 ff., 40, 47, 65; vii. 38; viii. 24, 
Bis κι 35 fh ; x. 9, 26; xi. 25 ff.; xii. 47; xiv.6; xy. δ ἢ; xvi. 9; 
xvii. 27.5 xx. 81. 

7 Késtlin, Lehrbegriff, pp. 57, 178 ff.; Reuss, Hist. Théol. Chrét., 11. 
pp. 427 f., 491 ff, 508 ff. ; Baur, Unters. kan. Evy., p. 312; Hilgenfeld, 
Das Ev. Joh., pp. 256 ff., 285 ff. 





EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 353 


his doctrine, was appointed to be the foundation of the 
Church, and for this reason his name was by the truthful 
voice of Jesus himself changed to Peter, the first-fruit of 
our Lord: the first of the Apostles to whom first the 
Father revealed the Son ; whom the Christ as worthy of 
praise blessed ; the called and elect and companion at 
table and in journeying (of Jesus) ; the admirable and 
approved disciple, who as fittest of all was commanded 
to enlighten the darker path of the world, and was able 
rightly to do so,” &c.1 He is here represented as the 
Apostle to the Heathen, the hated Apostle Paul being 
robbed of that honourable title, and he is, in the spirit of 
this introduction, made to play, throughout, the first part’ 
amongst the Apostles.? In the fourth Gospel, however, 
he is assigned quite a secondary place to John,* who is 
the disciple whom Jesus loved and who leans on his 
bosom.* We shall only mention one other point. The 
Homilist, when attacking the Apostle Paul, under the 
name of Simon the Magician, for his boast that he had not 
been taught by man, but by a revelation of Jesus Christ,® 
whom he had only seen in a vision, inquires: “ Why, 
then, did the Teacher remain and discourse a whole year 


© Σίμων, ὁ διὰ τὴν ἀληθῆ πίστιν καὶ τὴν ἀσφαλεστάτην αὐτοῦ τῆς διδασκαλίας 
ὑπόθεσιν τῆς ᾿Εκκλησίας θεμέλιος εἶναι ὁρισθεὶς καὶ δι’ αὐτὸ τοῦτο ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ 
Ἰησοῦ ἀψευδεῖ στόματι μετονομασθεὶς Πέτρος: ἡ ἀπαρχὴ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν: ὁ τῶν 
ἀποστόλων πρῶτος, ᾧ πρώτῳ 6 Πατὴρ τὸν Υἱὸν ἀπεκάλυψεν - ὃν ὁ Χριστὸς εὐλόγως 
ἐμακάρισεν" 6 κλητὸς καὶ ἐκλεκτὸς καὶ συνέστιος καὶ συνοδοίπορος " 6 καλὸς καὶ 
δόκιμος μαθητής" ὁ τῆς δύσεως τὸ σκοτεινότερον τοῦ κόσμου μέρος ὡς πάντων 
ἱκανώτερος φωτίσαι κελευσθεὶς καὶ κατορθῶσαι δυνηθείς, κιτιλ. Ep. Clem. ad 
Jacobum, ὃ 1. 

2 Baur, K. G., i. p. 104 ff. 

3 Baur, Theol. Jahrb., 1844, 4, p. 627 ff. ; Unters. Kan. Evv., p. 320 ff. ; 
Hilgenfeld, Die Evyangelien, p. 335; Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., ii. 
p. 355 ff. 

* Of, John xiii. 23—25; xix, 26 f.; xx. 2f.; xxi. 3 ff., 7, 20 ff. 

5 Gal. i. 12 f, 

VOL, 11. AA 


354 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


to those who were awake, if you become his Apostle after 
a single hour of instruction?” ? As Neander aptly 
remarks: “But if the author had known from the 
Johannine Gospel that the teaching of Christ had con- 
tinued for several years, he would certainly have had 
particularly good reason instead of one year to set 
several,”? It is obvious that an author with so vehement 
an animosity against Paul would assuredly have strength- 
ened his argument, by adopting the more favourable 
statement of the fourth Gospel as to the duration of the 
ministry of Jesus, had he been acquainted with that 
work. 

We have only mentioned in the briefest manner a few 
of the discrepancies between the Clementines and the 
fourth Gospel, but those to which we have called atten- 
tion suffice to show that it is impossible that an author 
exhibiting such fundamental differences of religious 
belief can have known the fourth Gospel, or considered 
it a work of Apostolic origin or authority. 

Our attention must now be turned to the anonymous 
composition, known as the “Epistle to Diognetus,” 
general particulars regarding which we have élsewhere 
given.* This epistle, it is admitted, does not contain 
any quotation from any evangelical work, but on the 
strength of some supposed references it is claimed by 
apologists as evidence for the existence of the fourth 
Gospel. ‘'Tischendorf, who only devotes a dozen lines to 
this work, states his case as follows: “ Although this 
short apologetic epistle does not contain anywhere any 
precise quotation from a gospel, yet it contains repeated 
references to evangelical, and particularly to Johannine, 


1 Hom., xvii. 19. 3 K. G., ii. p. 624, anm, 1. 
3 Vol. ii. p. 37 ff. 





EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 355 


passages. For when the author writes, ch. 6: ‘ Christians 
dwell in the world, but they are not of the world ;’ and 
in ch. 10: ‘ For God has loved men, for whose sakes he 
made the world .... to whom he sent his only be- 
gotten Son,’ the reference to John xvii. 11 (‘But they 
are in the world’); 14 (‘The world hateth them, for 
they are not of the world’); 16 (‘ They are not of the 
world as I am not of the world’); and to John iii. 16 
(‘God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten 
Son’), is hardly to be mistaken.” ? 

Dr. Westcott still more emphatically claims the epistle 
as evidence for the fourth Gospel, and we shall, in order 
impartially to consider the question, likewise quote his 
remarks in full upon the point, but as he introduces his 
own paraphrase of the context in a manner which does 
not properly convey to a reader who has not the epistle 
before him the nature of the context, we shall take the 
liberty of putting the actual quotations in italics, and 
the rest must be taken as purely the language of Canon 
Westcott. We shall hereafter show also the exact separa- 
tion which exists between phrases which are here, with 
the mere indication of some omission, brought together 
to form the supposed references to the fourth Gospel. 
Canon Westcott says: “In one respect the two parts of 
the book are united,? inasmuch as they both exhibit a 
combination of the teaching of St. Paul and St. John, 
The love of Ged, it is said in the letter to Diognetus, is 
the source of love in the Christian, who must needs 


1 Wann wurden, u, s. w., p. 40. We may mention that neither 
Tischendorf nor Dr, Westcott gives the Greek of any of the passages 
pointed out in the Epistle, nor do they give the original text of the 
parallels in the Gospel. 

? This is a reference to the admitted fact that the first ten chapters are 
by a different author from the writer of the last two. 

AA2 


356 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


‘love God who thus first loved him’ (προαγαπήσαντα), and 
find an expression for this love by loving his neighbour, 
whereby he will be ‘an imitator of God? ‘ For God 
loved men, for whose sakes He made the world, to whom 
He subjected all things that are in the earth. . . . unto 
whom (πρός) He sent His only begotten Son, to whom 
He promised the kingdom in heaven (τὴν ἐν οὐρανῷ 
βασιλείαν), and will give it to those who love Him.’ 
God’s will is mercy ; ‘He sent His Son as wishing to 
save (ὡς odlwv) .... and not to condemn, and as 
witnesses of this, ‘Christians dwell in the world, though 
they are not of the world.’ At the close of the para- 
graph he proceeds: “The presence of the teaching of 
St. John is here placed beyond all doubt. There are, 
however, no direct references to the Gospels throughout 
the letter, nor indeed any allusions to our Lord’s dis- 
courses.” ? 

It is clear that as there is no direct reference to any 
Gospel in the Epistle to Diognetus, even if it were 
ascertained to be a composition dating from the middle 
of the second century, which it is not, and even if the 
indirect allusions were ten times more probable than 


1 On the Canon, p. 77. Dr. Westcott continues, referring to the later 
and more recent part of the Epistle: ‘‘So in the conclusion we read that 
‘the Word who was from the beginning . . . at His appearance speaking 
boldly manifested the mysteries of the Father to those who were judged 
faithful by Him.’ And these again to whom the Word speaks ‘ from love 
of that which is revealed to them,’ share their knowledge with others.” 
It is not necessary to discuss this, both because of the late date of the 
two chapters, and because there is certainly no reference at all to the 
Gospel in the words. We must, however, add, that as the quotation is 
given it conveys quite a false impression of the text. We may just 
mention that the phrase which Dr. Westcott quotes as: ‘‘the Word who 
was from the beginning,” is in the text: ‘‘ This is he who was from the 
beginning” (οὗτος ὁ ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς) although ‘‘the Word” is in the context, 
ard no doubt intended. 

2 Ib., p. 78. 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 357 


they are, this anonymous work could do nothing towards 
establishing the apostolic origin and historical character 
of the fourth Gospel. 


We shall, however, for those who may be interested in more 
minutely discussing the point, at once proceed to examine 
whether the composition even indicates the existence of the 
Gospel, and for this purpose we shall take each of the passages 
in question and place them with their context before the reader ; 
and we only regret that the examination of a document which, 
neither from its date nor evidence can be of any real weight, 
should detain us so long. The first passage is: “ Christians dwell 
in the world but are not of the world” (χριστιανοὶ ἐν κόσμῳ 
οἰκοῦσιν, οὔκ εἰσὶ δὲ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου). Dr. Westcott, who reverses 
the order of all the passages indicated, introduces this sentence 
(which occurs in chapter vi.) as the consequence of a passage 
following it in chapter vii. by the words “and as witnesses of this: 
Christians,” &c. . . . The first parallel which is pointed out in 
the Gospel reads, John xvii. 11: “ And I am no more in the 
world, and these are in the world (kai οὗτοι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ εἰσών), 
and I come to thee, Holy Father keep them,” ἄς. Now it must be 
evident that in mere direct point of language and sense there is 
no parallel here at all. In the Gospel the disciples are referred 
to as being left behind in the world by Jesus who goes to the 
Father, whilst in the Epistle the object is the antithesis that 
while Christians dwell in the world they are not of the world. 
In the second parallel, which is supposed to complete the analogy, 
the Gospel reads: ν. 14, “I have given them thy word: and 
the world hated them because they are not of the world, (καὶ ὁ 
κόσμος ἐμίσησεν αὐτούς, ὅτι οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου) even as I am 
not of the world.” Here, again, the parallel words are merely 
introduced as a reason why the world hated them, and not 
antithetically, and from this very connection we shall see that 
the resemblance between the Epistle and the Gospel is merely 
superficial and accidental. 

In order to form a correct judgment regarding the nature of 
the passage in the Epistle, we must carefully examine the context. 
In chapter v, the author is speaking of the manners of Christians, 
and he says that they are not distinguished from others either 


358 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


by country or language or by their customs, for they have 
neither cities nor speech of their own, nor do they lead a 
singular life. They dwell in their native countries, but only as 
sojourners (πάροικοι), and the writer proceeds by a long sequence 
of antithetical sentences to depict their habits. “Every foreign 
land is as their native country, yet the land of their birth is a 
foreign land” (πᾶσα ξένη, πατρίς ἐστιν αὐτῶν" καὶ πᾶσα πατρὶς, 
ξένη), and so on. Now this epistle is in great part a mere 
plagiarism of the Pauline and other canonical epistles, whilst 
professing to describe the actual life of Christians, and the fifth 
and sixth chapters, particularly, are based upon the epistles of 
Paul and notably the 2d Epistle to the Corinthians, from which 
even the antithetical style is derived. We may give aspecimen 
of this in referring to the context of the passage before us, and 
it is important that we should do so. After a few sentences 
like the above the fifth chapter continues: “They are in the 
flesh, but do not live according to the flesh. They continue on 
earth, but are citizens of heaven” (ἐπὶ γῆς διατρίβουσιν ἀλλ᾽ ἐν 
οὐρανῷ Tmodurevovtat).! 


1 The whole passage in the Epistle recalls many passages in the works 
of Philo, with which the writer was evidently well acquainted, One 
occurs tous. Speaking of Laban and his family, that ‘‘ they dwelt as in 
their native country, not as in a foreign land” (ὡς ἐν πατρίδι, οὐχ ὡς ἐπὶ 
ξένης παρῷκησαν), he continues after a few reflections: ‘‘ For this reason 
all the wise men according to Moses are represented as sojourners, 
(παροικοῦντες), for their souls are indeed sent to earth as to a colony from 
heaven..... they return thither again whence they first proceeded, 
regarding indeed as their native land the heavenly country in which they 
are citizens, but as a foreign land the earthly dwelling in which they 
sojourn” (πατρίδα μὲν τὸν οὐράνιον χῶρον ἐν ᾧ πολιτεύονται, ξένον δὲ τὸν 
περίγειον ἐν ᾧ παρῴκησαν νομίζουσαι). And a little further on: ““Βυὺ Moses 
saith: ‘I am a stranger in a foreign land,’ regarding with perfect dis- 
tinction the abiding in the body not only as a foreign land, as sojourners 
do, but also as worthy of estrangement, not considering it one’s own 
home.” De Confus. Ling., § 17, Mangey, i. 416. One more instance: 
‘‘ First that God does not grant to the lover of virtue to dwellin the body 
as in his own native land, but only permits him to sojourn in it as in 
a strange country. .... But the country of the body is kindred to 
all of the wicked, in which he is careful to dwell, not to sojourn,” &c. 
‘Quis Rerum Diy. Heres, ὃ 54, Mang., i. 512, cf. ὃ 55; De Confus. 
Ling., § 22, ib., i. 421; De Migrat. Abrahami, ὃ 2, 7b., i. 438, ὃ 28, 
ib., i, 460. 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 


EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS, V. 

They obey the prescribed laws 
and exceed the laws by their own 
lives. They love all and are perse- 
cuted by all. 

They are unknown and are con- 
demned. 

They are put to death and are 
made alive. 

They are poor and make many 
rich; they are in need of all things 
and in all abound. 

They are dishonoured and in the 
dishonour honoured ; they are pro- 
fanely reported! and are justified. 

They are reviled and they bless,” 
&c., &e, 





359 


2nD Ep. To CoRINTHIANS, 
A paraphrase of yi. 3—6 (cf. iv. 
2, 8—9). 


vi. 9. As unknown and well 
known ; as dying and behold we 
live; as chastened and not put to 
death. 

10. ....As poor yet making 
many rich; as haying nothing and 
possessing all. 

8. Through honour and dis- 
honour; through evil report and 
good report; as deceivers; and true. 

1 Cor. iy. 12. Being reviled we 
bless.® 


It is very evident here, and throughout the Epistle, that the 
Epistles of Paul chiefly, together with the other canonical 
Epistles, are the sources of the writer’s inspiration. The next 
chapter (vi) begins and proceeds as follows: “To say all ina 
word : what the soul is in the body, that Christians are in the 
world. The soul is dispersed throughout all the members of 
the body, and Christians throughout all the cities of the world. 
The soul dwells in the body but is not of the body, and 
Christians dwell in the world, but are not of the world. 
(Οἰκεῖ μὲν ἐν τῷ σώματι ψυχὴ, οὐκ ἔστι δὲ ἐκ τοῦ σώματος" καὶ 
Χριστιανοὶ ἐν κόσμῳ οἰκοῦσιν, οὐκ εἰσὶ δὲ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου.) The 
invisible soul is kept in the visible body, and Christians are 
known, indeed, to be in the world, but their worship of God 
remains invisible. The flesh hates the soul and wages war 
against it, although unjustly, because it is restrained from 
indulgence in sensual pleasures, and the world hates Christians, 


1 Of. 1 Cor. iv. 13. 
2 ’Ayvoovvrat, καὶ κατακρίνονται. Θανατοῦνται, καὶ ζωοποιοῦνται" πτωχεύουσι, 
yvoo ακρ χεύο 
καὶ πλουτίζουσι πολλούς. Πάντων ὑστεροῦνται, καὶ ἐν πᾶσι περισσεύουσιν. 
> - +" “κ᾿ > ῃ ΄ Ἢ a \ a ἃ 
Ατιμοῦνται, καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἀτιμίαις δοξάζονται βλασφημοῦνται, καὶ δικαιοῦνται 
λοιδοροῦνται, καὶ εὐλογοῦσιν᾽ κιτλ. Ep. ad Diogn. y. 

8.2. Cor. vi. 9, ὡς ἀγνοούμενοι καὶ ἑπιγινωσκόμενοι, ὡς ἀποθνήσκοντες καί 
ἰδοὺ ζῶμεν, ὡς παιδευόμενοι καὶ μὴ θανατούμενοι, 10 . . . . ὡς πτωχοὶ πολλοὺς 
δὲ πλουτίζοντες, ὡς μηδὲν ἔχοντες καὶ πάντα κατέχοντες. 8. διὰ δόξης καὶ ἀτιμίας, 
διὰ δυσφημίας καὶ εὐφημίας" ὡς πλάνοι καὶ ἀληθεῖς. 1 Cor, iv. 12... .. 


λοιδορούμενοι εὐλογοῦμεν, K.TA. 


360 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


although unjustly, because they are opposed to sensual pleasures 
(μισεῖ καὶ Χριστιανοὺς 6 κόσμος μηδὲν ἀδικούμενος, ὅτι ταῖς ἡδοναῖς 
ἀντιτάσσονται). The soul loves the flesh that hates it, and the 
members, and Christians love those who hate them” (καὶ Χρισ- 
τιανοὶ τοὺς μισοῦντας ἀγαπῶσιν). And so on with three or four 
similar sentences, one of which, at least, is taken from the 
Epistle to the Corinthians,’ to the end of the chapter. 

Now the passages pointed out as references to the fourth 
Gospel, it will be remembered, distinctly differ from the parallels 
in the Gospel, and it seems to us clear that they arise naturally 
out of the antithetical manner which the writer adopts from 
the Epistles of Paul, and are based upon passages in those 
Epistles closely allied to them in sense and also in language. 
The simile in connection with which the words occur is com- 
menced at the beginning of the preceding chapter, where 
Christians are represented as living as strangers even in their 
native land, and the very essence of the passage in dispute is 
given in the two sentences: “They are in the flesh, but do 
not live according to the flesh” (ἐν σαρκὶ τυγχάνουσιν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ 
κατὰ σάρκα ζῶσιν), which is based upon 2 Cor. x. 3, “For we 
walk in the flesh, but do not war’ according to the flesh” (ἐν 
σαρκὶ yap περιπατοῦντες οὐ κατὰ σάρκα στρατευόμεθα), and similar 
passages abound ; as for instance, Rom. vill. 4 . . . “in us who 
walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit ; 9. 
But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit (ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐκ ἐστὲ 
ἐν σαρκὶ ἀλλὰ ἐν πνεύματι): 12... So then, brethren, we are 
debtors not to the flesh, that we should live after the flesh” (οὐ 
τῇ σαρκὶ τοῦ κατὰ σάρκα ζῆν) &e., &e., (cf. 4, 14). And the 
second: “They continue on earth but are citizens of heaven” 
(ἐπὶ γῆς διατρίβουσιν, add’ ἐν οὐρανῷ πολιτεύονται), Which recalls 
Philip. iii. 20 : “ For our country (our citizenship) is in heaven” 
(ἡμῶν yap τὸ πολίτευμα ἐν οὐραυοῖς ὑπάρχει). The sense of the 
passage is everywhere found, and nothing is more natural than 
the use of the words arising both out of the previous reference 


1 «*The immortal soul dwells in a mortal tabernacle, and Christians 
dwell as strangers incorruptible, awaiting the incorruption in the 
heavens (καὶ Χριστιανοὶ παροικοῦσιν ἐν φθαρτοῖς, τὴν ἐν οὐρανοῖς ἀφθαρσίαν 
προσδεχόμενοι). Ep. ad Diogn. vi. οὗ, 1 Cor. xv. 53, 54; 2 Cor. y. 1 ff. 

’ 2 The preceding verse has ‘‘ walk,” instead of ‘‘ war.” 

3 Of, Ephes, ii. 19; Heb. xii. 22; xiii. 14. 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 361 


to the position of Christians as mere sojourners in the world, 
and as the antithesis to the preceding part of the sentence : 
“The soul dwells in the body, but is not of the body,” and: 
“Christians dwell in the world but are not of the world,” cf. 
1 Cor. ii, 12; vii. 31; 2 Cor. i. 12. Gal. iv. 29, v. 16 ff. 24, 25, 
vi. 14. Rom. viii. 3 ff. Ephes. ii, 2, 3, 11 ff Coloss. ui. 2 ff: 
Titus ii. 12, James i. 27. There is one point, however, which 
we think shows that the words were not derived from the 
fourth Gospel. The parallel with the Epistle can only be made 
by taking a few words out of xvii. 11 and adding to them a few 
words in verse 14, where they stand in the following connection 
“ And the world hated them, because they are not of the world” 
(καὶ ὁ κόσμος ἐμίσησεν αὐτούς, ὅτι οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου). In 
the Epistle, in a passage quoted above, we have: “The flesh 
hates the soul, and wages war against it, although unjustly, 
because it is restrained from indulgence in sensual pleasures, 
and the world hates Christians, although unjustly, because 
they are opposed to sensual pleasures.” (Mice? τὴν ψυχὴν ἡ 
σὰρξ, καὶ πολεμεῖ, μηδὲν ἀδικουμένη, διότι ταῖς ἡδοναῖς κωλύεται 
χρῆσθαι" μισεῖ καὶ Χριστιανοὺς ὃ κόσμος μηδὲν ἀδικούμενος, ὅτι 
ταῖς ἡδοναῖς ἀντιτάσσονται.) 

Now nothing could more clearly show that these analogies 
are mere accidental coincidence, and not derived from the fourth 
Gospel, than this passage. If the writer had really had the pas- 
sage in the Gospel in his mind, it is impossible that he could in 
this manner have completely broken it up and changed its 
whole context and language. The phrase: “they are not of the 
world ” would have been introduced here as the reason for the 
hatred, instead of being used with quite different context else- 
where in the passage. In fact, in the only place in which 
the words would have presented a true parallel with the 
Gospel, they are not used. Not the slightest reference is made 
throughout the Epistle to Diognetus to any of the discourses of 
Jesus, On the other hand, we have seen that the whole of the 
passage in the Epistle in which these sentences occur is based 
both in matter, and in its peculiar antithetical form, upon the 
Epistles of Paul, and in these and other canonical Epistles, 
again, we find the source of the sentence just quoted: Gal. 
vi. 29. “But as then, he that was born after the flesh per- 
secuted him (that was born) after the Spirit, even so it is 


362 ; SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


πον. vy. 16. “ Walk by the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the 
lust of the flesh. 17. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit 
and the Spirit against the flesh: for these are contrary the one 
to the other, that ye may not do the things that ye would.”? 
There are innumerable passages in the Pauline Epistles to the 
same effect. 

We pass on now to the next passage in the order of the 
Epistle. It is not mentioned at all by Tischendorf: Dr. West- 
cott introduces it with the words: “God’s will is mercy,” by 
which we presume that he means to paraphrase the context. 
“He sent his Son as wishing to save (ὠς σώζων)... . and 
not to condemn.”* This sentence, however, which is given as 
quotation without any explanation, is purely a composition by 
Canon Westcott himself out of different materials which he 
finds in the Epistle, and is not a quotation at all. The actual 
passage in the Epistle, with its immediate context, is as follows: 
“This (Messenger—the Truth, the holy Word) he sent to them; 
now, was it, as one of men might reason, for tyranny and to 
cause fear and consternation? Not so, but in clemency and 
gentleness, as a King sending his Son (πέμπων υἱὸν) a king, he 
sent (ἔπεμψεν) ; as God he sent (him) ; as towards men he sent ; 
as saving he sent (ὡς σώζων ἔπεμψεν) (him); as persuading (ὡς 
πείθων), not forcing, for violence has no place with God. He sent 
as inviting, not vindictively pursuing; he sent as loving, not 
condemning (ἔπεμψεν ὡς ἀγαπῶν, οὐ κρίνων). For he will send 
him to judge, and who shall abide his coming.” * The supposed 
parallel in the Gospel is as follows (John iii. 17): “ For God 
sent not his Son into the world that he might condemn the 


1°ANN ὥσπερ τότε ὁ κατὰ σάρκα γεννηθεὶς ἐδίωκεν τὸν κατὰ πνεῦμα, οὕτως Kal 
νῦν. Gal. iv. 29. 

2 Gal. v. 16, πνεύματι περιπατεῖτε καὶ ἐπιθυμίαν σαρκὸς οὐ μὴ τελέσητε" 
17, ἡ γὰρ σὰρξ ἐπιθυμεῖ κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα κατὰ τῆς σαρκός" 
ταῦτα δὲ ἀλλήλοις ἀντίκειται, ἵνα μὴ ἃ ἂν θέλητε ταῦτα ποιῆτε. Cf. 18—25 ; 
Titus ii. 12. 

3 On the Canon, p. 77. 

4 Τοῦτον πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἀπέστειλεν, Gpd ye, ὡς ἀνθρώπων ἄν τις λογίσαιτο, ἐπὶ 
τυραννίδι καὶ φόβῳ καὶ καταπλήξει ; Οὔμενουν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἐπιεικείᾳ, πραὔτητι" ὡς 
βασιλεὺς πέμπων υἱὸν βασιλέα ἔπεμψεν" ὡς θεὸν ἔπεμψεν, ὡς πρὸς ἀνθρώπους 
»Ὦ{ ε , » => & (6, > , e , 4 > 4 ~ 
ἔπεμψεν, ὡς σώζων ἔπεμψεν" ὡς πείθων, ov βιαζόμενος" Bia yap ov πρόσεστι τῷ 
θεῷ. "Ἔπεμψεν ὡς καλῶν, οὐ διωκῶν᾽ ἔπεμψεν ὡς ἀγαπῶν, οὐ κρίνων. Πέμψει 
γὰρ αὐτὸν κρίνοντα, καὶ τίς αὐτοῦ τὴν παρουσίαν ὑποστήσεται. (. Vii. 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 363 


world, but that the world through him might be saved”! (od yap 
ἀπέστειλεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἵνα κρίνῃ τὸν κόσμον, 
ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα σωθῇ 6 κόσμος δι’ αὐτοῦ). Now, it is obvious at a glance 
that the passage in the Epistle is completely different from that 
in the Gospel in every material point of construction and lan- 
guage, and the only similarity consists in the idea that God’s 
intention in sending his Son was to save and not to condemn, 
and it is important to notice that the letter does not, either here or 
elsewhere, refer to the condition attached to salvation so clearly 
enunciated in the preceding verse: “ That whosoever believeth 
in him might not perish.” The doctrine enunciated in this pas- 
sage is the fundamental principle of much of the New Testament, 
and it is expressed with more especial clearness and force, and 
elose analogy with the language of the letter, in the Epistles of 
Paul, to which the letter more particularly leads us, as well as 
in other canonical Epistles, and in these we find analogies with 
the context quoted above, which confirm our belief that they, 
and not the Gospel, are the source of the passage—Rom. v. 8 : 
“But God proveth his own love towards us, in that while we 
were yet sinners Christ died for us. 9. Much more then.. - 

. shall we be saved (σωθησόμεθα) through him from the 
wrath (to come).” Cf.16,17. Rom. viii. 1: “There is, therefore, 
now no condemnation (κατάκριμα) to them which are in Christ 
Jesus? 3... . God sending his own Son” (ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ 
υἱὸν πέμψας) ἕο. And coming to the very 2nd Epistle to the 
Corinthians, from which we find the writer borrowing whole- 
sale, we meet with the different members of the passage we 
have quoted: v. 19... . “God was reconciling the world 
unto himself in Christ, not reckoning unto them their trespasses 
.... 20. On Christ’s behalf, then, we are ambassadors, as 
though God were entreating by us; we pray on Christ’s behalf: 
Be reconciled to God, v. 10. For we must all appear before the 
judgment seat of Christ, ἄο, 11. Knowing, then, the fear of 


1 The previous verse which we shall more particularly have to consider 
with the next passage, reads: 16. ‘‘ For God so loved the world that he 
gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him might not 
perish, but have eternal life.” 

2 The Cod. Alex., and some other ancient MSS. add: “ who walk not 
after the flesh,” μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν. 

8 Cf. vy. 82---8ὅ, 39. 


364 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


the Lord, we persuade (πείθομεν) men,” ὥς. Galatians iv. 4. 
“ But when the fulness of time came, God sent out his Son 
(ἐξαπέστειλεν 6 θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ), 5. That he might redeem 
them that were under the law, that we might receive the adop- 
tion of sons,”! &. Ephes. ii. 4. “But God being rich in mercy 
because of his great love wherewith he loved us, 5. Even when 
we were dead in our trespasses, quickened us together with 
Christ—by grace ye have been saved” —cf. verses 7,8. 1 Thess. : 
v. 9. “For God appointed us not to wrath, but to the obtaining 
salvation (σωτηρίας) through our Lord Jesus Christ.” 1 Tim. 
i. 15. “ This is a faithful saying ... . that Christ Jesus came 
into the world to save sinners” (ἁμαρτωλοὺς σῶσαι). 1 Tim. 
ii 3. “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our 
Saviour (τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ). 4. Who willeth all men to be 
saved” (ds πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι), cf. v. 5,6. 2 Tim. 
i. 9. “Who saved us (σώσαντος ἡμᾶς), and called us with a holy 
calling, not according to our works, but according to his own 
purpose, and the grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus 
before eternal times; 10. But hath been made manifest by the 
appearing of our Saviour (σωτῆρος) Jesus Christ.”* These pas- 
sages might be indefinitely multiplied; and they contain the 
sense of the passage, and in many cases the language, more 
closely than the fourth Gospel, with which the construction and 
form of the sentence has no analogy. 

Now, with regard to the Logos doctrine of the Epistle to 


1 The letter to Diognetus may further be connected with the Ep. to 
Galatians in the remarks which the writer makes (iv.) on the observance of 
days, &c., by the Jews: ‘‘ But regarding their attending to the stars and 
moon, observing the months and days,” &c. (παρατήρησιν τῶν μηνῶν καὶ τῶν 
ἡμερῶν, x.7.r.). Of. Gal. iv. 10. ‘‘ Ye are observing days and months, 
and times and years,” &c. (ἡμέρας παρατηρεῖσθε καὶ μῆνας καὶ καιροὺς καὶ 
ἐνιαυτούς ;) . 

2 In Ch. xi. which, it will be remembered, is acknowledged to be of 
later date, and not by the writer of the earlier part, the author, an 
admitted falsifier therefore, represents himself, as the writer of the letter, 
as: ‘‘having been a disciple of the Apostles, I am become a teacher of 
the Gentiles.” (ἀποστόλων γενόμενος μαθητὴς, γίνομαι διδάσκαλος ἐθνῶν" ο. Xi.) 
Having observed the imitation in the earlier part of the letter of the 
Pauline Epistles, the writer of the last two chapters is induced to make 
this statement after an Epistle ascribed to Paul: 2 Tim. i, 11: ““ For 
which I was appointed a herald, and an Apostle, and a teacher of the 
Gentiles.” (καὶ ἀπόστολος καὶ διδάσκαλος ἐθνῶν.) 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 365 


Diognetus, to which we may appropriately here refer, although 
we must deal with it in the briefest manner possible, so far is 
it from connecting the Epistle with the fourth Gospel, that 
it much more proves the writer’s ignorance of that Gospel. The 
peculiar terminology of the prologue to the Gospel is nowhere 
found in the Epistle, and we have already seen that the term 
Logos was applied to Jesus in works of the New Testament, 
acknowledged by all to have been written long before the fourth 
Gospel. Indeed, it is quite certain, not only historically, but 
also from the abrupt enunciation of the doctrine in the prologue, 
that the theory of the Logos was well known and already 
applied to Jesus before the Gospel was composed. The author 
knew that bis statement would be understood without explana- 
tion. Although the writer of the Epistle makes use of the 
designation “ Logos,” he shows his Greek culture by giving the 
precedence to the term Truth or Reason. It has indeed been 
remarked! that the name Jesus or Christ does not occur any- 
where in the Epistle. By way of showing the manner in which 
“the Word ” is spoken of, we will give the entire passage, part 
of which is quoted above; the first and only one in the first ten 
chapters in which the term is used: “ For, as I said, this was 
not an earthly invention which was delivered to them (Chris- 
tians), neither is it a mortal system which they deem it right to 
maintain so carefully; nor is an administration of human 
mysteries entrusted to them, but the Almighty and invisible 
God himself, the Creator of all things (ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς 6 παντοκράτωρ 
καὶ παντοκτίστης καὶ ἀόρατος θεὸς) has implanted in men, and 
established in their hearts from heaven, the Truth and the 
Word, the holy and incomprehensible (τὴν ᾿Αλήθειαν καὶ τὸν Λόγον 
τὸν ἅγιον καὶ ἀπερινόητον), not as one might suppose, sending to 
men some servant or angel or ruler (ἄρχοντα), or one of those 
ordering earthly affairs, or one of those entrusted with the 
government of heavenly things, but the artificer and creator of 
the universe (τὸν τεχνίτην καὶ δημιουργὸν τῶν ὅλων) himself, by 
whom he created the heavens (ᾧ τοὺς οὐρανοὺς ἔκτισεν) ;" by 


1 Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr. ii. p. 127. 

2 Johni. 3. ‘‘ All things were made by him; and without him was 
not anything made that hath been made (πάντα 80 αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς 
αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν.) The difference of this language will be 
remarked. 


366 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


whom he confined the sea within its own bounds; whose com- 
mands (uvorjpia—mysteries) all the stars (croixeia—elements) 
faithfully observe ; from whom (the sun) has received the mea- 
sure of the daily course to observe; whom the moon obeys, 
being bidden to shine at night; whom the stars obey, following 
in the course of the moon; by whom all things haye been 
arranged and limited and subjected, the heavens and the things 
in the heavens, the earth and the things in the earth, the sea 
and the things in the sea (οὐρανοὶ καὶ τὰ ἐν οὐρανοῖς, γῆ καὶ τὰ ἐν 
τῇ γῇ, θάλασσα καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ), fire, air, abyss, the things 
in the heights, the things in the depths, the things in the space 
between. This (Messenger—the truth, the Word) he sent to 
them. Now, was it, as one of men might reason, for tyrrany 
and to cause fear and consternation? Not so, but in clemency 
and gentleness, as a King sending his Son, a king, he sent; as 
God he sent (him) ; as towards men he sent, as saving he sent 
(him); as persuading,” &c., &c.! The description here given, 
how God in fact. by Reason or Wisdom created the Universe, has 
much closer analogy with earlier representations of the doctrine 
than with that in the fourth Gospel, and if the writer does also 
represent the Reason in a hypostatic form, it is by no means 
with the concreteness of the Gospel doctrine of the Logos, with 
which linguistically, moreover, as we have observed, it has no 
similarity. There can be no doubt that his Christology presents 
differences from that of the fourth Gospel.” 

We have already seen how Jesus is called the Word in works 
of the New Testament earlier than the fourth Gospel,’ and how 
the doctrine is constantly referred to in the Pauline Epistles 
and the Epistle to the Hebrews, and it is to these, and not to 
the fourth Gospel, that the account in the Epistle to Diognetus 
may be more properly traced. Heb. i. 2. “The Son of God by 
whom also he made the worlds. 10. The heavens are works of 
thy hands” (ἔργα τῶν χειρῶν δου εἰσῖν οἱ οὐρανοῦ. xi.3. “By 
faith we understand that the worlds were framed (κατηρτίσθαι), by 
the word of God ” (ῥήματι θεοῦ). 1 Cor. viii. 6. “Jesus Christ by 
whom are all things” (δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα). Coloss.i.13. “. . . The 


1 Ep. ad Diogn.., vii. 

2 Cf. Dorner, Lehre Pers. Christi, i. p, 413 ff. ; Donaldson, Hist. Chr. 
Lit. and Doctr., i. Ρ. 121 ff. 

5. Rey. xix. 13; vi. 9; xx. 4: Heb. iy. 12, 13; xi. 3. 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 367 


Son of his love: 15. Who is the image of the invisible God 
(rod θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου) the first-born of all creation ; 16. Because 
in him are all things created, the things in the heavens, and 
the things in the earth, the things visible and the things 
invisible (ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ 
ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ, καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα) whether they be thrones or 
dominions, or principalities, or powers; All things have been 
ereated by him and for him (τὰ πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν 
ἔκτισται). 17. And he is before all things, and in him all things 
subsist. 18, And he is the head of the body, the Church, who 
is the Beginning! (ὅς ἐστιν ἀρχή) ; the first-born from the dead ; 
that in all things he might be the first. 19. Because he was 
well pleased that in him should all the fulness dwell.. 20. And 
through him to reconcile all things unto himself,” &c., &e. 
These passages might be greatly multiplied, but it is unnecessary, 
for the matter of the letter is substantially here. As to the 
titles of King and God they are everywhere to be found. In 
the Apocalypse the Lamb whose name is “The Word of God” 
(ὁ Λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ), (xix. 13) has also his name written (xix. 16), 
“King of kings and Lord of lords” (Βασιλεὺς βασιλέων καὶ 
-Κύριος κυρίων) We have already quoted the views of Philo 
regarding the Logos, which also merit comparison with the 
passage of the Epistle, but we cannot repeat them here. 

The last passage to which we have to refer is the following: 
“For God loved men, for whose sakes He made the world, to 
whom He subjected all things that are in the earth . . . Unto 
whom (πρός) He sent his only-begotten Son, to whom He 
promised the kingdom in heaven (τὴν ἐν οὐρανῷ βασιλείαν) and 
will give it to those who love Him.”’ The context is as follows: 
“For God loved men (6 γὰρ θεὸς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἠγάπησε) for 
whose sake he made the world, to whom he subjected all things 
that are in it, to whom he gave reason and intelligence, to whom 
alone he granted the right of looking towards him, whom he 
formed after his own image, to whom he sent his only begotten 
son (πρὸς ods ἀπέστειλε τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ), to whom he 
has promised the kingdom in heaven, and will give it to those 


1 Of. Rev. iii. 14, 


3 Cf. Rev. xvii. 14; Coloss. i. 15; Phil. ii. 6; 2 Cor. iv. 4; Heb. 
{8 
3 On the Canon, p. 77. 


368 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


who have loved him. And when you know this, with what 
gladness, think you, you will be filled? Or how will you love 
him, who beforehand loved you? (προαγαπήσαντά σε). But if 
you love, you will be an imitator of his kindness,’ &e. (μιμητὴς 
ἔσῃ αὐτοῦ τῆς χρηστότητος). This is claimed as a reference to 
John iii. 16 f..“ For God so loved the world (οὕτως yap ἠγάπησεν 
ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον) that he gave his only begotten son (ὥστε τὸν 
υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν) that whosoever believeth in him 
might not perish,” ἄορ. 17. “For God sent not his son into the 
world that he might judge the world,” &. (οὐ yap ἀπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς 
τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἵνα κρίνῃ τὸν κόσμον). Here, again, 
a sentence is patched together by taking fragments from the 
beginning and middle of a passage, and finding in them a 
superficial resemblance to words in the Gospel. We find 
parallels for the passage, however, in the Epistles from which 
the unknown writer obviously derives so much of his matter. 
Rom. v. 8: “ But God giveth proof of his love towards us, in 
that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. 10.... 
through the death of his son.” Chap. viii. 8, “God 
sending his son, &. 29.... Them he also foreordained 


to bear the likeness of the image of his son, &. 32. He. 


that spared not his own son, but delivered him up for us all,” 
ἄς. 39. (Nothing can separate us) “from the love of God 
which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Gal. i. 20... . “by the 
faith of the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for 
me.” Chap. iv. 4. “ God sent out his son (ἐξαπέστειλεν 6 θεὸς τὸν 
υἱὸν αὐτοῦ). 5... . that he might redeem,” ἄρ Ephes. ii. 4. 
“ But God being rich in mercy because of his great love where- 
with he loved us. 5. Even when we were dead in our trespasses 
hath quickened us together with Christ. 7. That he might show 
forth the exceeding riches of his grace in kindness (χρηστότης) 
towards us in Christ Jesus.” Chap. iv. 32. “ Be ye kind (χρηστοῦ 
one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even as 
God also in Christ forgave you.”* Chap. v. 1. “Be ye therefore 


. > 
1 Ep. ad Diogn. x., ‘O yap θεὸς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἠγάπησε, δι’ ods ἐποίησε 
, A ἃ s , 4 9 e , ” τ a e , 
τὸν κόσμον, οἷς ὑπέταξε πάντα τὰ ἐν... .. οἷς λόγιον ἔδωκεν, οἷς νοῦν: οἷς μόνοις 
πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁρᾷν ἐπέτρεψε" οὗς ἐκ τῆς ἰδίας εἰκόνος ἔπλασε: πρὸς ods ἀπέστειλε 
ἣ ‘ ς > a ‘ a + ‘ > > “ , 3 ‘ , 
τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ. ois THY ἐν οὐρανῷ βασιλείαν ἐπηγγείλατο, καὶ δώσει 
τοῖς ἀγαπήσασιν αὐτόν. ᾿Ἐπιγνοὺς δὲ, τίνος οἰει πληρωθήσεσθαι χαρᾶς; ἢ πῶς 
ἀγαπήσεις τὸν οὕτως προαγαπήσαντά σε; ἀγαπήσας δὲ, μιμητὴς ἔσῃ αὐτοῦ τῆς 
χρηστότητος" K.T.A. 2 Cf. Coloss. iii. 12—14. 


; 


¥ 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 369 


imitators (μιμηταὶ) of God as beloved children. 2, And walk 
in love (ἐν ἀγάπῃ) even as Christ also loved us (ὁ Χριστὸς 
ἠγάπησεν ὑμᾶς), and gave himself for us,” &., &. Titus iii. 4. 
“But when the kindness (χρηστότης) and love towards men 
(φιλανθρωπία) of our Saviour God was manifested. 5. . . 
according to his mercy he saved us... . 6... . through Jesus 
Christ our Saviour. 7. That being justified by his grace, we 
should become heirs according to the hope of Eternal life.”’ 

The words: “ Or how will you love him who beforehand loved 
you?” (ἢ πῶς ἀγαπήσεις τὸν οὕτως προαγαπήσαντά σε ;), Canon 
Westcott refers to 1 John iv. 19, “We love God? because 
he first loved us” (jets ἀγαπῶμεν, ὅτι αὐτὸς πρῶτος ἠγάπησεν 
ἡμᾶς.) The linguistic differences, however, and specially the 
substitution of προαγαπήσαντα for πρῶτος ἠγάπησεν, distinctly 
oppose the claim. The words are a perfectly natural comment 
upon the words in Ephesians, from which it is obvious the 
writer derived other parts of the sentence, as the striking word 
“kindness” (χρηστότης), which is commonly used in the Pauline 
Epistles, but nowhere else in the New Testament,’ shows. 

Dr. Westcott “cannot call to mind a parallel to the phrase 
‘the kingdom in heaven’”* which occurs above in the phrase 
“to whom he has promised the kingdom in heaven, and will 
give it to those who have loved him” (οἷς τὴν ἐν οὐρανῷ 
βασιλείαν ἐπηγγείλατο, καὶ δώσει τοῖς ἀγαπήσασιν αὐτόν). This 
also we find in the Epistles to which the writer exclusively 
refers in this letter: James 11, 5, “heirs of the kingdom which 
he promised to them that love him” (τῆς βασιλείας ἧς ἐπηγγείλατο 
τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν) i. 12. “.. . he shall receive the crown of 
life which he promised to them that love him” (ὃν ἐπηγγείλατο 
τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν). In 2 Tim. iv. 18, we have: “The Lord. 
shall preserve me safe unto his heavenly kingdom”? (εἰς τὴν 
βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐπουράνιον). It is very possible that all of 


1 Cf. 2 Thess. ii, 16 ; 1 Thess. ii,.12, iy..9 - 

> We quote the peadiny of the Cod. Sinaiticus as moat fayourable to 
Dr. Westcott; the Alexandrian and Vatican MSS. haye simply: ‘we 
love,” omitting both ‘‘God” and “him.” > 

ὃ Cf, Rom. ii. 4; iii, 12; xi, 22 (thrice); 2 Cor. vi. 6; Gal. v. 22; 
Ephes, ii. 7 ; ef. iv. 82; Coloss, iii. 12; Titus, iii, 4; cf. 1 Peter, ii. 3. 

* On the Canon, p. 77, note 4. 

5 Cf. 2 Tim. iv. 8 ; 2 Thess. i, 5, 

VOL. II. BR 


370 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


these passages may refer to words of Jesus not contained in 
our Gospel, but which the writer of the Epistle may have 
found in some other evangelical work. The expression “king- 
dom of heaven” is not found in the fourth Gospel at all, but is 
characteristic of the first Synoptic, and traces are not wanting 
in this Epistle of the use of a Gospel akin to, but differing from, 
the first; we cannot, however, go into this matter. 


We have devoted too much time already to this Epistle, 
the evidence of which could not in any case be of value 
to the fourth Gospel. The writer of the Epistle to Diog- 
netus is unknown; Diognetus, the friend to whom it is 
addressed, is equally unknown; the letter is neither 
mentioned nor quoted by any of the Fathers, nor by 
any ancient writer, and there is no external evidence 
as to the date of the composition. It exists only in 
one codex, the handwriting of which is referred to the 
thirteenth or fourteenth century, but it is by no means 
certain that it is even so old. The last two chapters are 
a falsification by a later writer than the author of the 
first ten. There is no internal evidence whatever in this 
brief didactic composition which would render its assign- 
ment to the third or fourth centuries incongruous, or 
which demands an earlier date. Apart from the uncer- 
tainty of date, however, there is no allusion in it to any 
Gospel. Even if there were, the testimony of a letter by 
an unknown writer at an unknown period could not have 
much weight, but under the actual circumstances the 
Epistle to Diognetus furnishes absolutely no testimony 
at all for the apostolical origin and historical character 
of the fourth Gospel. 

The fulness with which we have discussed the sup- 
posed testimony of Basilides! renders it unnecessary for 


1 Vol. ii. p. 41 ff 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 371 


us to re-enter at any length into the argument as to his 
knowledge of the fourth Gospel. Tischendorf* and 
Canon Westcott? assert that two passages, namely : 
“ The true light which lighteth every man came into the 
world,” corresponding with John i, 9, and: “mine hour 
is not yet come,” agreeing with John ii. 4, which are 
introduced by Hippolytus in his work against Heresies ὃ 
with ἃ subjectless φησί “ he says,” are quotations made 
in some lost work by Basilides. We have shown that 
Hippolytus and other writers of his time were in the 
habit of quoting, indifferently, passages from works by 
the founders of sects and by their later followers without 
any distinction, an utterly vague φησί doing service 
equally for all. This is the case in the present instance, 
and there is no legitimate reason for assigning these 
passages to Basilides himself,* but on the contrary many 
considerations which forbid our doing so, which we have 
elsewhere detailed. 

These remarks most fully apply to Valentinus, whose 
supposed quotations we have exhaustively discussed,° as 
well as the one passage given by Hippolytus containing 
a sentence found in John x. 8,° the only one which can 
be pointed out. We have distinctly proved that the 
quotations in question are not assignable to Valentinus 
himself, a fact which even apologists admit. There is no 
just ground for asserting that his terminology was 


1 Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 52. 

2 On the Canon, p. 256, note 3. 3 vii, 22, 27. 

4 Hilgenfeld, Die Evangelien, p. 345, anm. 5; Zeitschr. wiss. Theol., 
1862, p. 400 ff. ; Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii. p. 388 f.; Volkmar, Zeitschr. 
wiss. Theol., 1860, p. 295; Der Ursprung, p. 69 f.; -Rump/, Rey. de 
Théol., 1867, p. 18 ff., p. 366; Scholten, Die iilt. Zeugnisse, p. 65 f. ; 
Zeller, Theol. Jahrb., 1853, p. 148 ff.; Guericke, Wbuch. K, G., i. p. 184; 
Strauss, Das Leben Jesu, 1864, p. 67 f. 

§ Vol. ii. p. 56 ff. 6 Adv. Her., vi. 35. 

BB 2 


372 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


derived from the fourth Gospel, the whole having been 
in current use long before that Gospel was composed. 
There is no evidence whatever that Valentinus was 
acquainted with such a work.’ 

We must generally remark, however, with regard to 
Basilides, Valentinus and all such Heresiarchs and 
writers, that, even if it could be shown, as actually it 
cannot, that they were acquainted with the fourth 
Gospel, the fact would only prove the mere existence of 
the work at a late period in the second century, but would 
furnish no evidence of the slightest value regarding its 
apostolic origin, or towards establishing its historical value. 
On the other hand, if, as apologists assert, these heretics 
possessed the fourth Gospel, their deliberate and total 
rejection of the work furnishes evidence positively 
antagonistic to its claims. It is difficult to decide 
whether their rejection of the Gospel, or their igno- 
rance of its existence is the more unfavourable alter- 
native. 

The dilemma is the very same in the case of Marcion. 
We have already fully discussed his knowledge of our 
Gospels,? and need not add anything here. It is not 
pretended that he made any use of the fourth Gospel, and 
the only ground upon which it is argued that he supplies 
evidence even of its existence is the vague general state- 
ment of Tertullian, that Marcion rejected the Gospels 
“which are legitimately promulgated, and under the name 


1 Baur, Unters. kan. Ey., p. 357 f.; Bretschneider, Probabilia, p. 212 ff.; 
Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii. p. 390; LHilgenfeld, Die Evangelien, p. 345 ; 
Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 67 ff.; Rumpf, Rey. de Théol., 1867, 
p- 17; Zeller, Die Apostelgesch., p. 65 ff. ; Theol. Jahrb., 1853, p. 151 f. ; 
Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 69 ff.; Theol. Jahrb., 1854, p. 108 ff. ; 
Weizsacker, Unters. Evang. Gesch., p. 234; Strauss, Das Leben Jesu, 
1864, p. 67. - ? Vol. ii. p. 79 ff. 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 518 


of Apostles and Apostolic men,” denying their truth and 
integrity, and maintaining the sole authority of his own 
Gospel." We have shown? how unwarrantable it is to 
affirm from such data that Marcion knew, although he 
repudiated, the four canonical Gospels. The Fathers, 
with uncritical haste and zeal, assumed that the Gospels 
adopted by the Church at the close of the second and 
beginning of the third centuries must equally have been 
invested with canonical authority from the first, and 
Tertullian took it for granted that Marcion, of whom he 
knew very little, must have deliberately rejected the four 
Gospels of his own Canon. Even Canon Westcott 
admits that: “it is uncertain whether Tertullian in the 
passage quoted speaks from a knowledge of what Marcion 
may have written on the subject, or simply from his own 
point of sight.” * There is not the slightest evidence that 
Marcion knew the fourth Gospel,* and if he did, it is 
perfectly inexplicable that he did not adopt it as pecu- 
liarly favourable to his own views.® If he was acquainted 
with the work and, nevertheless, rejected it as false and 
adulterated, his testimony is obviously opposed to the 
Apostolic origin and historical accuracy of the fourth 
Gospel, and the critical acumen which he exhibited in 
his selection of the Pauline Epistles renders his judgment 
of greater weight than that of most of the Fathers. 

We have now reached an epoch when no evidence 


1 Ady. Mare., iy. 3, 4. 3 Vol, ii. p. 144 ff. 

3 On the Canon, p. 276, note 1. 

4 Oredner, Beitrige, i. p. 45, anm. 1; Lichhorn, Ein]. Ν, T., i. 
pp. 73 ff., 79, 84; Gieseler, Entst. schr. Eyv., p. 25; Hilgenfeld, Die Evv. 
Justin’s, p. 474; Schleiermacher, Hinl. N. T., 1845, p. 214 f.; Rump/f, 
Rey. de Théol., 1867, p. 21; Scholten, Die ilt. Zeugnisse, p. 76 ff. ; 
Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., i, p. 282; Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 76. 

5. THilgenfeld, Die Evy. σύρει 8, Pe. 474 ; Scholten, Die iilt. ἜΒΗ ΤΕ Ρ. 
77; Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p, 76 ff. 


374 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


regarding the fourth Gospel can have much weight, 
and the remaining witnesses need not detain us long. 
We have discussed at length the Diatessaron of Tatian,? 
and shown that whilst there is no evidence that it was 
based upon our four Gospels, there is reason to believe 
that it may have been identical with the Gospel accord- 
ing to the Hebrews, by which name, as Epiphanius 
states,? it was actually called. We have only now briefly 
to refer to the address to the Greeks (Λόγος πρὸς 
"EdAnvas), and to ascertain what testimony it bears regard- 
ing the fourth Gospel. It was composed after the death 
of Justin, and scarcely dates earlier than the beginning of 
the last quarter of the second century. No Gospel and 
no work of the New Testament is mentioned in this 
composition, but Tischendorf* and others point out one 
or two supposed references to passages in the fourth 
Gospel. The first of these in order, is one indicated by 
Canon Westcott,* but to which Tischendorf does not call 
attention: “God was in the beginning, but we have 
learned that the beginning is the power of Reason (Θεὸς 
ἦν ev ἀρχῇ, τὴν δὲ ἀρχὴν λόγου δύναμιν παρειλήφαμεν). 
For the Lord of the Universe (δεσπότης τῶν ὅλων) 
being himself the substance (ὑπόστασις) of all, in that 
creation had not been accomplished was alone, but inas- 
much as he was all power, and himself the substance of 
things visible and invisible, all things were with him 
(σὺν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα). With him by means of rational 
power the Reason (Λόγος) itself also which was in him 
subsisted, But by the will of his simplicity, Reason 
(Λόγος) springs forth; but the Reason (Λόγος) not 


1 Vol. ii. p. 152 ff. 3. Wann wurden, τι. s. w., p. 17. 
3 Heor., xlyi. ὃ 1. 4 On the Canon, p. 278, note 2. 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 375 


proceeding in vain, became the first-born work (ἔργον 
πρωτότοκον) of the Father. Him we know to be the 
Beginning of the world (Τοῦτον ἴσμεν τοῦ κόσμου τὴν 
ἀρχήν). But he came into existence by division, not by 
cutting off, for that which is cut off is separated from 
the first: but that which is divided, receiving the choice 
of administration, did not render him defective from 
whom it was taken, &., &c. And as the Logos (Reason), 
in the beginning begotten, begat again our creation, 
himself for himself creating matter (Kai καθάπερ 6 
Λόγος, ἐν ἀρχῇ γεννηθεὶς, ἀντεγέννησε τὴν Kal ἡμᾶς 
ποίησιν, αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ τὴν ὕλην δημιουργήσας), so I,” 
&e., ἄς." 

It is quite evident that this doctrine of the Logos is 
not that of the fourth Gospel, from which it cannot have 
been derived. ‘Tatian himself? seems to assert that he 
derived it from the Old Testament. We have quoted 
the passage at length that it might be clearly under- 


1 Orat. ad Greecos, ὃ 5. As this passage is of some obscurity, we subjoin, 
for the sake of impartiality, an independent translation taken from Dr. 
Donaldson’s able History of Christ. Lit. and Doctrine, iii. p. 42: “‘ God 
was in the beginning, but we have understood that the beginning was a 
power of reason. For the Lord of all, Himself being the substance of all, 
was alone in so far as the creation had not yet taken place, but as far as 
He was all power and the substance of things seen and unseen, all things 
were with Him: along with Him also by means of rational power, the 
reason which was in Him supported them. But by the will of his sim- 
plicity, the reason leaps forth ; but the reason, not having gone from one 
who became empty thereby, is the first-born work of the Father. Him 
we know to be the beginning of the world. But He came into existence 
by sharing (μερισμός) not by cutting off; for that which is cut off is sepa- 
rated from the first; but that which is shared, receiving a selection of 
the work, did not render Him defective from whom it was taken, &c., &c. 
And as the Word begotten in the beginning begot in his turn our crea- 
tion, He Himself fashioning the material for Himself, so I, &c., ἄς," Cf. 
Dorner, Lehre Pers. Christi, i. p. 437 ff. 

2 § 12, cf. § 20; cf Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., iii. p. 32; 
Bretschneider, Probabilia, p. 193 ff. 


376 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


stood ; and with the opening words, we presume, for he 
does not quote at all but merely indicates the chapter, 
Canon Westcott compares John i. 1: “ In the beginning 
was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God 
was the Word” (Ev ἀρχῇ ἦν 6 Λόγος, «.7.d.). The state- 
ment of Tatian is quite different : ‘“‘God was in the 
beginning” (Θεὸς ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ), and he certainly did not 
identify the Word with God, so as to transform the 
statement of the Gospel into this simple affirmation. In 
all probability his formula was merely based upon 
Genesis 1. 1 : “ In the beginning God created the heavens 
and the earth” (ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν 6 Θεὸς, x.7.d.).) The 
expressions : “ But we have learned that the Beginning 
(ἀρχή) was the power of Reason,” &c., “but the Reason 
(Λόγος) not proceeding in vain became the first-born 
work (ἔργον πρωτότοκον) of the Father. Him we know 
to be the Beginning (ἀρχή) of the world,” recall many 
early representations of the Logos, to which we have 
already referred: Prov. viii. 22: “The Lord created me 
the Beginning (ἀρχή) of his ways for his works (ἔργα). 
23, Before the ages he established me, in the be- 
ginning (ἐν ἀρχῇ) before he made the earth,” &c., &c. 
In the Apocalypse also the Word is called “the Be- 
ginning (ἀρχή) of the creation of God,” and it will be 
remembered that Justin gives testimony from Prov. viii. 
21 ff. “that God begat before all the creatures a 
Beginning (ἀρχήν) a certain rational Power (δύναμιν 
λογικὴν), out of himself,?” &c., &c., and elsewhere: “ As 
the Logos has declared through Solomon, that also a 
Beginning (ἀρχή) before all of the created beings was 
begotten,” &c.* We need not, peace refer to the 


1 Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., iii. p. 48... ᾿ς 
3 Dial. 61, see vol. ii. p. 286. . * Dial, 62, see yol. ii. p. 286. 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 377 


numerous passages in Philo and in Justin, not derived 
from the fourth Gospel, which point to a different source 
for Tatian’s doctrine. It is sufficient that both his 
opinions and his terminology differ distinctly from 


that Gospel. 


The next passage we at once subjoin in contrast with 
the parallel in the fourth Gospel : 


Orat. AD GRagjCOS, ὃ XIII. 
And this, therefore, is (the mean- 
ing of) the saying: 
The darkness comprehends not 
the light. 
Καὶ τοῦτο ἔστιν ἄρα τὸ εἰρημένον’ 
‘H σκοτία τὸ φῶς οὐ καταλαμβάνει.͵ 





JOHN I. ὅ. 
And the light shineth in the 
darkness ; 
and the darkness cotnprabnaded 


it not. 


Ἁ ‘ ~ > ΄“ ’ ‘ 
Kai τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ 
ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν, 


The context to this passage in the Oration is as 
follows: Tatian is arguing about the immortality of 
the soul, and he states that the soul is not in itself 
immortal but mortal, but that nevertheless it is possible 
for it not to die. If it do not know the truth it dies, but 
rises again at the end of the world, receiving eternal 
death asa punishment. “ Again, however, it does not 
die, though it be for a time dissolved, if it has acquired 
knowledge of God; for in itself it is darkness, and there is 
nothing luminous in it, and this, therefore, is (the mean- 
ing of) the saying: The darkness comprehends not the 
light. For the soul (ψυχή) did not itself save the spirit 
(πνεῦμα), but was saved by it, and the light com- 
prehended the darkness, The Logos (Reason) truly is 
the light of God, but the ignorant soul is darkness 
(Ὁ Λόγος μέν ἔστι τὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ φῶς, ακότος δὲ ἡ 
ἀνεπιστήμων ψυχή). For. this reason if it remain 


Ὁ We have already mentioned that the Gospel according to Peter con- 
tained the doctrine of the Logos. 


378 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


alone it tends downwards to matter, dying with the 
flesh,” &c., ἄς. The source of “the saying” is not men- 
tioned, and it is evident that even if it be taken to be a 
reference to the fourth Gospel, nothing would thereby be 
proved but the mere existence of the Gospel. “The 
saying,” however, is distinctly different in language from 
the parallel in the Gospel, and it may be from a different 
Gospel. We have already remarked that Philo calls the 
Logos “the Light,”? and quoting in a peculiar form 
Ps, xxvi. 1: “For the Lord is my light (φῶς) and my 
Saviour,” he goes on to say that, as the sun divides day 
and night, so, Moses says, “‘ God divides light and dark- 
ness” (τὸν θεὸν φῶς καὶ σκότος διατειχίσαι). When 
we tum away.to things of sense we use “another 
light,” which isin no way different from “darkness,”* 
The constant use of the same similitude of Light and 
darkness, in the Canonical Epistles,’ shows how current 
it was in the Church ; and nothing is more certain than 
the fact that it was neither originated by, nor confined 
to, the fourth Gospel. 
The third and last passage is as follows : 


ORAT. AD GRA&COS, XIX. | JOHN I, 8. 
We being such as this, do not | 
pursue us with hatred, but, reject- 
ing the Demons, follow the one God. 
All things were by (ὑπ᾽) him, and All things were made by (δι᾽) him, 
without him wasnotanything made. | and without him was not anything 





: made that was made. 
, c > > ~ A A > ~ , » » - » ’΄ A ‘ 
Πάντα ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ Πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς 
γέγονεν οὐδὲ ἕν. | αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν, 


1 Orat. ad Greecos, ὃ 13. 
~ 2 De Somniis, i. ὃ 13, Mangey, i. 632; cf. §§ 14 ff., De Mundi op. § 9, 
ib,, i. 7. See yol. ii. p. 297, note 2, 

ὁ De Somniis, i. § 13. 4 Jb., i, § 14. - 

5 11 Cor. iy. 6; Ephes. Υ. 8—I4; Calne, 12 1331 Thess. ¥. 3; I 
Tim. vi. 16; 1-Pot. 11.9; cf. Rey, xxi. 23, 24; xxii.-, 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 379 


Tatian here speaks of God, and not of the Logos, 
and in this respect, as well as language and context, 
the passage differs from the fourth Gospel. The phrase 
is not introduced as a quotation, and no reference is 
made to any Gospel. The purpose for which the words 
are used, again, rather points to the first chapters of 
Genesis than to the dogmatic prologue enunciating the 
doctrine of the Logos. Under all these circumstances, 
the source from which the expression may have been 
derived cannot with certainty be ascertained, and, as 
in the preceding instance, even if it be assumed that the 
words show acquaintance with the fourth Gospel, 
nothing could be proved but the mere existence of 
the work about a century and a half after the events 
which it records. It is obvious that in no case does 
Tatian afford the slightest evidence of the Apostolic 
origin or historical veracity of the fourth Gospel. 

We have generally discussed the testimony of Diony- 
sius of Corinth,? Melito of Sardis,3 and Claudius Apol- 
linaris,* and need not say more here. The fragments 
attributed to them neither mention nor quote the fourth 
Gospel, but in no case could they furnish evidence to 
authenticate the work. The same remarks apply to 
Athenagoras.6 Canon Westcott only ventures to say, 
that he “appears to allude to passages in St. Mark and 
St. John, but they are all anonymous.”® The passages 
in which he speaks of the Logos, which are those 
referred to here, are certainly not taken from the fourth 
Gospel, and his doctrine is expressed in terminology 


1 Cf. 1 Cor, viii. 6; Ephes. iii. 9; Heb. i, 2. 
2 Vol. il. p. 163 ff, 8. 70, p. 172 ff. 4 Tb., p. 185 ff, 
5 Ib., p. 191 ff, i § On the Canon, p. 103, 


380 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


which is different from that of the Gospel, and is deeply 
tinged with Platonism.' He appeals to Proverbs viii. 22, 
already so frequently quoted by us, for confirmation by 
the Prophetic Spirit of his exposition of the Logos 
doctrine.?- Hé nowhere identifies the Logos with Jesus :* 
indeed he does not once make use of the name of Christ 
in his works. He-does not show the slightest knowledge 
of the doctrine of salvation so constantly enunciated in 
the fourth Gospel. There can be no doubt, as we have 
already shown,‘ that he considered the Old Testament to 
be the only inspired Holy Scriptures. Not only does he 
not mention nor quote any of our Gospels, but the only 
instance in which he makes any reference to sayings of. 
Jesus, otherwise than by the indefinite φησί: “he says,” 
is one in which he introduces a saying which is not 
found in our Gospels by the words: “The Logos again 
saying to us:” (πάλιν ἡμῖν λέγοντος τοῦ Λόγου), &c. From 
the same source, which was obviously not our Canonical 
Gospels, we have, therefore, reason to conclude that Athe- 
nagoras derived all his knowledge of Gospel history and 
doctrine. . We need scarcely add that this writer affords 
no testimony whatever as to the origin or character of 
the fourth Gospel. 

It is scarcely worth while to refer to the Rpm of 
Vienne and Lyons, a composition dating at the earliest 
A.D. 177-178, in which no direct reference is made to any 
writing of the New Testament.’ Acquaintance with the 
fourth Gospel is argued from the following passage : 


1 Cf. Dorner, Lehre Pers. Christi, i. p. 440 ff.; Donaldson, Hist. Chr. 
Lit. and Doctr., iii. p. 149 ff. 

2 Leg. pro Christ., § 10. ΄ 

3 Dorner, ib., 1, Ῥ. 442; Donaldson, {ὖ., iii. p, 154. 

4 Vol. ii. p, 199 f. 5 Vol. ii. p. 201 ff. 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 


EPISTLE, ὃ Iv. 

And thus was fulfilled the saying 
of our Lord: 

The time shall come in which 
every one that killeth you shall 
think that he offereth a service 
unto God. 

᾿Ελεύσεται καιρὸς ἐν ᾧ πᾶς ὁ ἀπο- 
κτείνας ὑμᾶς, δόξει λατρείαν προσφέρειν 
τῷ θεῷ. 





981 


JOHN XVI. 2. 


But the hour cometh that every 
one that killeth you may think that 
he offereth a service unto God. 


ἀλλ᾽ ἔρχεται Spa iva πᾶς ὁ dmo-~ 
κτείνας ὑμᾶς δόξῃ λατρείαν προσφέρειν. 
τῷ θεῷ, 


Now such a passage cannot prove the use of the fourth 
Gospel. No source is indicated in the Epistle from which 
the saying of Jesus, which of course apologists assert to 
be historical, was derived. It presents decided variations 
from the parallel in the fourth Gospel; and in the 
Synoptics we find sufficient indications of similar dis- 
courses’ to render it very probable that other Gospels 
may have contained the passage quoted in the Epistle. 
In no case could an anonymous reference like this be of 
any weight as evidence for the Apostolic origin of the 
fourth Gospel. 

We need not further discuss Ptolemzeus and Heracleon. 
We have shown? that the date at which these heretics 
flourished places them beyond the limits within which 
we proposed to confine ourselves. In regard to Ptole- 
meeus all that is affirmed is that, in the Epistle to Flora 
ascribed to him, expressions found in John i. 3 are used. 
The passage as it is given by Epiphanius is as follows : 
‘ Besides, that the world was created by the same, the 
Apostle states (saying all things have been made (yeyo- 
vévat) by him and without him nothing was made).” 
(Ἔτι ye τὴν τοῦ κόσμου δημιουργίαν ἰδίαν λέγει εἶναι 
(ἅτε πάντα δὶ αὐτοῦ γεγονέναι, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ γέγονεν 
οὐδὲν) ὁ. ἀπόστολος)" Now the supposed quotation is 


1 Matt. x. 16—22, xxiy. 9 f.; Mark xiii. 9—13; Luke xxi. 12—17. 
2 Vol. i. p. 205 ff. 3 Epiphanius, Heer., xxxiii. § 3, 


382 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


introduced here in a parenthesis interrupting the sense, 
and there is every probability that it was added as an 
illustration by Epiphanius, and was not in the Epistle to 
Flora at all. Omitting the parenthesis, the sentence is a 
very palpable reference to the Apostle Paul, and Coloss. 
i. 16.1 In regard to Heracleon, it is asserted from the 
unsupported references of Origen? that he wrote a com- 
mentary on the fourth Gospel. Even if this be a fact, 
there is not a single word of it preserved by Origen 
which in the least degree bears upon the Apostolic origin 
and trustworthiness of the Gospel. Neither of these 
heresiarchs, therefore, is of any value as a witness for the 
authenticity of the fourth Gospel. 

The heathen Celsus, as we have shown,’ wrote at a 
period when no evidence which he could well give of his 
own could have been of much value in supporting our 
Gospels. He is pressed into service,* however, because 
after alluding to various circumstances of Gospel history 
he says: “These things, therefore, being taken out of 
your own writings, we have no need of other testimony, 
for you fall upon your own swords,”® and in another 
place he says that certain Christians “have altered the 
Gospel from its first written form in three-fold, four-fold, 
and many-fold ways, and have re-moulded it in order to 
have the means of contradicting the arguments (of oppo- 
nents).”® This is supposed to refer to the four Canonical 


1 Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 88, anm. 4. 

2 The passages are quoted by Grabe, Spicil. Patr., ii. p. 85 ff. 
}i* Vol. 1. p. 227 ff. 

4 Cf. Tischendorf, Wann wurden, τ. 5. w., p. 71 ff. ; Westcott, On the 
Canon, p. 356. 

5 Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ὑμῖν ἐκ τῶν ὑμετέρων συγγραμμάτων, ἐφ᾽ οἷς οὐδενὲς ἄλλου 
μάρτυρος χρήζομεν᾽ αὐτοὶ γὰρ ἑαυτοῖς περιπίπτετε. Origen, Contra Cels., ii. 74. 

δ Ὡς ἐκ μέθης ἥκοντας εἰς τὸ ἐφεστάναι αὑτοῖς, μεταχαράττειν ἐκ τῆς πρώτης 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 589 


Gospels, Apart from the fact that Origen replies to the 
first of these passages, that Celsus has brought forward 
much concerning Jesus which is not in accordance with 
the narratives of the Gospels, it is absurd to limit the 
accusation of “many-fold” corruption to four Gospels, 
when it is undeniable that the Gospels and writings long 
current in the Church were very numerous. In any case, 
what could such a statement as this do towards establish- 
ing the Apostolic origin and credibility of the fourth 
Gospel ? | | | 
We might pass over the Canon of Muratori entirely, 
as being beyond the limit of time to which we confine 
ourselves,! but the unknown writer of the fragment gives 
a legend with regard to the composition of the fourth 
Gospel which we may quote here, although its obviously 
mythical character renders it of no valuc as evidence 
regarding the authorship. of the Gospel. The writer says : 


Quarti euangeliorum Iohannis ex decipolis 
Cohortantibus condescipulis et episcopis suis 
dixit conieiunate mihi hodie triduo et quid 
cuique fuerit reuelatum alterutrum 

nobis ennarremus eadem nocte reue 

latum Andreze ex apostolis ut recognis 
centibus cuntis Iohannis suo nomine 
cuncta describeret et ideo (?) licit uaria sin 
culis euangeliorum libris principia 
doceantur nihil:‘tamen differt creden 

tium fidei cum uno ac principali spiritu de 
clarata sint in omnibus omnia de natiui 
tate de passione de resurrectione 

de conuersatione cum decipulis suis 


γραφῆς τὸ εὐαγγελιον τριχῆ καὶ τετραχὴ καὶ πολλαχῆ, Kal μεταπλάττειν, ἵν᾿ ἔχοιεν 
πρὸς τοὺς ἐλέγχους ἀρνεῖσθαι. Contra Cels., ii, 27, 

1 Vol. ii. p. 244 ff 

2? It is admitted that the whole passage from this point to ‘“ futurum 
est’ is abrupt and without connection with the context, as well as most 
confused. Of. Z'regelles, Can. Murat., p. 36; Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. 
and Doctr., 111, p. 205. 


384 _ SUPERN. ATURAL RELIGION. 


ac de. gemino eius aduentu 


primo in humilitate dispectus cual fo 

.u (Ὁ) secundum potestate regali . . . pre 
clarum quod foturum est (*) quid ergo 
mirum si Iohannes tam constanter 
sincula etiam in epistulis suis proferat 

dicens in semeipsu quze uidimus oculis 
nostris et auribus audiuimus et manus 
nostrze palpauerunt hee scripsimus uobis 
sic enim non solum uisurem sed et auditorem 
sed et scriptorem omnium mirabilium domini per ordi 
nem profetetur 


“ The fourth of the Gospels, of John, one of the disciples. 
To his fellow disciples and bishops (Episcopis) urging 
him he said: ‘ Fast with me to-day for three days, and 
let us relate to each other that which shall be revealed 
to each.’ On the same night it was revealed to Andrew, 
one of the Apostles, that, with the supervision of all, 
John should relate all things in his own name. And, 
therefore, though various principles (principia) are taught 
by each book of the Gospels, nothing nevertheless differs 
in the faith of believers, for, in all, all things are declared 
by one ruling Spirit concerning the nativity, concerning 
the passion, concerning the resurrection, concerning the 
intercourse with the disciples, and concerning his double 
advent ; the first in despised humility which has taken 
place, the second in regal power and splendour, which is 
still future. What wender, therefore, if John should so 
constantly bring forward each thing (singula) also in his 


1 Credner reads here ‘‘ quod ratum est.” Zur Gesch. d. Kan., p. 74. 
Dr. Westcott reads: ‘‘ quod fuit.”” On the Canon, p. 478. 

2 Dr. Tregelles calls attention to the resemblance of this passage to one 
of Tertullian (Apol. ὃ 21). ‘‘ Duobus enim advyentibus eius significatis, 
primo, qui iam expunctus est in humilitate conditionis hamame ;" seeundo, 
qui concludendo seculo imminet in sublimitate divinitatis exserte: primum 
non intelligendo, secundum, quem manifestius preedicatum sperant unum 
existimayerunt.” Can. Murat., p. 36. This is another reason for dating 
the fragment in the third century. 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 385 


Epistles, saying in regard to himself: The things which 
we have seen with our eyes, and have heard with our 
ears, and our hands have handled, these things have we 
written unto you. For thus he professes himself not 
only an eye-witness and hearer, but also a writer of all 
the wonders of the Lord in order.” 

It is obvious that in this passage we have an apologetic 
defence of the fourth Gospel,’ which necessarily implies 
antecedent denial of its authority and apostolic origin. 
The writer not only ascribes it to John, but he clothes it 
with the united authority of the rest of the Apostles, in 
a manner which very possibly aims at explaining the sup- 
plementary chapter xxi. with its testimony to the truth 
of the preceding narrative. In his zeal the writer goes 
so far as to falsify a passage of the Epistle, and convert 
it into a declaration that the author of the letter had 
written the Gospel. “ ‘The things which we have seen, 
&c., these things have we written unto you’ (heec scripsi- 
mus vobis).? For thus he professes himself not only an 
eye-witness and hearer, but also a writer of all the wonders 
of the Lord in order.” Credner argues that in speaking 
of John as “ one of the disciples” (ex discipulis), and of 
Andrew as “one of the Apostles,” the writer intends to 
distinguish between John the disciple, who wrote the 
tospel and Epistle, and John the Apostle, who wrote the 
Apocalypse, as was done by Papias and Eusebius,* and 
that it was for this reason that he sought to dignify him 
by a special revelation, through the Apostle Andrew, 
selecting him to write the Gospel. Credner, therefore, 

τ Credner, Gesch. N. Τὶ Kanon, p. 158 f. und Volkmar, Anhang, p. 360 ; 
Der Ursprung, p. 28; Scholten, Die alt. Geugnisse, p. 150 f.; Davidson, 
Introd. N. T., ii. p. 402; LHilgenfeld, Der Kanon, pp. 41, 43; Lomann, 
Bijdragen, p. 66 ff. 


2 ohn i. 1—3. Gusebius, H. E., iii. 39. 
2 1 John i. 1—3 δ. ; ; 
VOL, II. co 


386 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


concludes that here we have an ancient ecclesiastical 
tradition ascribing the Gospel and first Epistle to one of 
the disciples of Jesus different from the Apostle John.' 
Into this, however, we need not enter, nor is it necessary 
for us to -demonstrate the mythical nature of this nar- 
rative regarding the origin of the Gospel. We have 
merely given this extract from the fragment to make our 
statement regarding it complete. Not only is the evi- 
dence of the fragment of no value, from the lateness of 
its date, and the uncritical character of its author, but 
a vague and fabulous tradition recorded by an unknown 
writer could not, in any case, furnish testimony calculated 
to establish the Apostolic origin and trustworthiness of 
the fourth Gospel. 


! Credner, Gesch. Ν T. Kan., p. 158 ff.; Theol. Jahrb., 1857, p. 301. 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 387 


CHAPTER IL. 
AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 


THe result of our inquiry into the evidence for the 
fourth Gospel is sufficiently decided to render further 
examination unnecessary. We have seen that for some 
century and a half, after the events recorded in the work, 
there is not only no testimony whatever connecting the 
fourth Gospel with the Apostle John, but no certain trace 
even of the existence of the Gospel. There has not been 
the slightest evidence in any of the writings of the 
Fathers which we have examined even of a tradition 
that the Apostle John had composed any evangelical 
work at all, and the claim advanced in favour of the 
Christian miracles to contemporaneous evidence of extra- 
ordinary force and veracity by undoubted eye-witnesses 
so completely falls to the ground, that we might here 
well bring this part of our inquiry to a close. There are, 
however, so many peculiar circumstances connected with 
the fourth Gospel, both in regard to its authorship and 
to its relationship to the three Synoptics, which invite 
further attention, that we propose briefly to review some 
of them. We must, however, carefully restrict ourselves 
to the limits of our inquiry, and resist any temptation to 
enter upon an exhaustive discussion of the problem 
presented by the fourth Gospel from a more general 
literary point of view. 


co2 


388 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


The endeavour to obtain some positive, or at least 
negative, information regarding the author of the fourth 
Gospel is facilitated by the fact that in the New Testa- 
ment Canon several other works are ascribed to him. 
These works present such marked and distinct charac- 
teristics that, apart from the fact that their number 
extends the range of evidence, they afford an unusual 
opportunity of testing the tradition which assigns them 
all to the Apostle John, by comparing the clear indica- 
tions which they give of the idiosyncrasies of their 
author with the independent data which we possess 
regarding the history and character of the Apostle. It 
is asserted by the Church that John the son of Zebedee, 
one of the disciples of Jesus, is the composer of no less 
than five of our canonical writings, and it would be 
impossible to select any books of our New Testament 
presenting more distinct features, or more widely di- 
vergent views, than are to be found in the Apocalypse 
on the one hand, and the Gospel and three Epistles on 
the other. Whilst a strong family likeness exists between 
the Epistles and the Gospel, and they exhibit close 
analogies both in thought and language, the Apocalypse, 
on the contrary, is so different from them in language, in 
style, in religious views and terminology, that it is 
impossible to believe that the writer of the one could be 
the author of the other. The translators of our New 
Testament have laboured, and not in vain, to eliminate 
as far as possible all individuality of style and language, 
and to reduce the various books of which it is composed 
to one uniform smoothness of composition. It is, there- 
fore, impossible for the mere English reader to appreciate 
the immense difference which exists between the harsh 
and Hebraistic Greek of the Apocalypse and the polished 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 389 


elegance of the fourth Gospel, and-it is to be feared that 
the rarity of critical study has prevented any general 
recognition of the almost equally striking contrast of 
thought between the two works. The very remarkable 
peculiarities which distinguish the Apocalypse and Gospel 
of John, however, were very early appreciated, and 
almost the first application of critical judgment to the 
Canonical books of the New Testament is the argument 
of Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, about the middle of 
the third century, that the author of the fourth Gospel 
could not be the writer of the Book of Revelation.’ The 
dogmatic predilections which at that time had begun to 
turn against the Apocalypse, the non-fulfilment of the 
prophecies of which disappointed and puzzled the early 
Church, led Dionysius to solve the difficulty by deciding 
in favour of the authenticity of the Gospel, but at least 
he recognized the dilemma which has since occupied so 
much of biblical criticism. 

It is not necessary to enter upon any exhaustive 
analysis of the Apocalypse and Gospel to demonstrate 
anew that both works cannot have emanated from the 
same mind, This has already been conclusively done by 
others. Some apologetic writers,—greatly influenced, 
no doubt, by the express declaration of the Church, and 
satisfied by the analogies which could scarcely fail to 
exist between two works dealing with a similar theme,— 
together with a very few independent critics, have asserted 
the authenticity of both works.? The great majority of 


1 Eusebius, H. E., vii. 25. 

2 Alford, Greek Testament, 1868, iv. pp. 198 ff., 229; Bertholdt, Ein). 
A.u. N. T., iv. p. 1800 ff. ; ef. iii. p. 1299 ff.; Hbrard, Die evang. Gesch., 
p. 858 ff.; Das evang. Johannis, 1845, p. 137 ff.; Hichhorn, Einl. N. T., 
i. p. S75 ff., cf. p. 223 ff. ; Feilmoser, Ein). N. T., p. 569 ff., ef. p. 199 ff. ; 
Hase, Die Tiib, Schule, 1855, p. 25 ff.; Hug, Einl, N. T., i. p. 496 ff, ef, 


390 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


critics, however, have fully admitted the impossibility of 
recognizing a common source for the fourth Gospel and 
the Apocalypse of John.’ The critical question regarding 
the two works has, in fact, reduced itself to the dilemma 
which may be expressed as follows, in the words of 
Liicke : “Either the Gospel and the first Epistle are 
genuine writings of the Apostle John, and in that case 
the Apocalypse is no genuine work of that Apostle, or 
the inverse.”? After an elaborate comparison of the 
two writings, the same writer, who certainly will 
not be suspected of wilfully subversive criticism, re- 
sumes: “The difference between the language, way 
of expression, and mode of thought and doctrine of the 
Apocalypse and the rest of the Johannine writings, is so 


p. 160 ff.; Lechler, Das ap. u. nachap. Zeit., p. 195 fi.; Niemeyer, Ver- 
handl. over de echtheid der Johann. Schr., 1852; Leithmayr, Einl. N. T., 
p. 774 ff; Thiersch, Die Kirche im. ap. Zeit., pp. 245 f., 267—274; 
Tholuck, Glaubw. evang. Gesch., p. 280 ff., &e., &e. 

1 Baur, Unters. kan. Ey., p. 346 ff; K. G. drei erst. Jahrh., 1863, p. 
146 ff.; Bleek, Beitriige, p. 190—200; Bretschneider, Probabilia, p. 150 ff. ; 
Credner, Einl. N. T., i. pp. 724 ff., 732 ff.; Davidson, Introd. N. T., i. 
p. 313 ff. ; ii, p.441; Dionysius, in Euseb., HW. E., vil. 24, 25; Erasmus, 
Annot. in Apoe. Johannis N. Test., p. 625; Hiwald, Jahrb. bibl. Wiss., 
vy. 1852—3, p. 179 ff. ; x. 1859—60, p. 85 f.; Die Joh. Schr., ii. p. 59 ff. ; 
Com. in Apoe. Joh., 1828, p. 67 ff.; Hvanson, Dissonance of the four 
generally received Evangelists, 1792; Hilgenfeld, Die Evangelien, 
p. 338 ff.; Hitzig, Ueber Johannes Marcus τι. 5. Schriften, 1843; Kayser, 
Rey. de Théol., 1856, xiii. p. 80 ff.; Késtlin, Lehrb., Ky. u. Br. Joh., 
p. 1 ff.; Liéicke, Hinl. Offenb. Joh., i. pp. 659 ff, 680 ff., 744 ff.; 
Michaelis, Einl. N. T., p. 1636; Nicholas, Et. Cr. sur la Bible N. T., 
p. 183 ff.; Renan, L’Antechrist, 1873, p. xxv.; Meuss, Gesch. N. T., 
p. 152 f.; Réville, Rev. de Théol., 1854, ix. pp. 332 ff., 354 ff., 1855, x. 
p. 1 ff.; Rey. des deux Mondes, Octr., 1863, p. 633 ff.; cf. La Vie de 
Jésus de M. Renan, 1864, p. 42, note1; Scholten, Das Ey. Joh., p. 401 ff. ; 
Schnitzer, Theol. Jahrb., 1842, p. 451 ff. ; Schleiermacher, Einl. N. T., 
pp. 317, 449 ff., 466 ff.; Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., ii. p. 372 f.; 
Tayler, The Fourth Gospel, 1867, p. 14; De Wette, Hinl. N. T., p. 422; 
Weizsicker, Unters. evang. Gesch., p. 237, p. 295; Zeller, Theol. Jahrb., 
1845, p. 654 f., &e., Ke. 

2 Hinl, Offenb. Johannes, ii. p. 504. 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 391 


comprehensive and intense, so individual, and even so 
radical ; the affinity and agreement, on the contrary, 
either so general, or in details so fragmentary and 
uncertain (zuriickweichend), that the Apostle John, if 
“he really is the author of the Gospel and of the Epistle 
—which we here advance—cannot have composed the 
Apocalypse either before or after the Gospel and the 
Epistle. If all critical experience and rules in such 
literary questions do not deceive, it is certain that the — 
Evangelist and Apocalyptist are two different persons of 
the name of John,”? &e. 

De Wette, another conservative critic, speaks with 
equal decision. After an able comparison of the two 
works, he says: ‘ From all this it follows (and in New 
Testament criticism no result is more certain than this), 
that the Apostle John, if he be the author of the fourth 
Gospel and of the Johannine Epistles, did not write 
the Apocalypse, or, if the Apocalypse be bis work, he is 
not the author of the other writings.”? Ewald is equally 
positive : “ Above all,” he says, “should we be in error 
as to the descent of this work (the Gospel) from the 
Apostle, if the Apocalypse of the New Testament were 
by him. That this much earlier writing cannot have been 
composed by the author of the later is an axiom which 
I consider I have already, in 1826-28, so convincingly 
demonstrated, that it would be superfluous now to return 
to it, especially as, since then, all men capable of forming 
a judgment are of the same opinion, and what has been 
brought forward by a few writers against it too clearly 
depends upon—influences foreign to science.”* We may, 
therefore, consider the point generally admitted, and 


1 ἘΠ]. Offenb. Joh., ii. p. 744 f. 3 Rinl. N. T., § 189 e., p. 422. 
8 Jahrb, bibl. Wiss., y. Ρ. 179. 


- 


392 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


proceed very briefly to discuss the question upon this 
basis. 

The external evidence that the Apostle John wrote the 
Apocalypse is more ancient than that for the authorship 
of any book of the New Testament, excepting some of | 
the Epistles of Paul. This is admitted even by critics 
who ultimately deny the authenticity of the work.’ 
Passing over the very probable statement of Andrew of 
Czesarea, *that Papias recognized the Apocalypse as an 
inspired work, and the inference drawn from this fact 
that he referred it to the Apostle, we at once proceed to 
Justin Martyr, who affirms in the clearest and most - 
positive manner the Apostolic origin of the work. He 
speaks to Tryphon of “a certaim man whose name was 
John, one of the Apostles of Christ, who prophesied by a 
revelation made to him,” of the Millennium, and subse- 
quent general resurrection and judgment.* The state- 
ment of Justin is all the more important from the fact 
that he does not name any other writing of the New 
Testament, and that the Old Testament was still for him 
the only Holy Scripture. The genuineness of this testi- 
mony is not called in question by any one. Eusebius 
states that Melito of Sardis wrote a work on the Apo- 


1 Oredner, Gesch. N. T. Kan., pp. 97, 180; Baur, Theol. Jahrb., 1844, 
p- 660; Ebrard, Die evang. Gesch., p. 854 f.; Davidson, Int. N. T., i. p. 
318; Hilgenfeld, Die Evangelien, p. 339 f.; Lechler, Das ap. u. nachap. 
Zeit., p. 197 f. ; Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., ii. p. 249; Feilmoser, Ein). 
Ν. Τ᾿, p. 578; Liicke, Einl. Offenb. Joh., ii. p. 657; Réville, Rev. des deux 
Mondes, Oct. 1863, p. 632; Kayser, Rey. de Théol., 1856, xiii. p. 80 f., 
&e., ἄς. 

? It is generally asserted both by Apologists and others that this testi- 
mony is valid in favour of the recognition by Papias of the authenticit 
of the Apocalypse. 

3 Dial. 81; cf. Eusebius, H. E., iv. 18 : Kai ἐπειδὴ καὶ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἀνήρ τις, ᾧ 
ὄνομα Ἰωάννης, εἷς τῶν ἀποστόλων τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἐν ἀποκαλύψει γενομένῃ αὐτῷ 
χίλια ἔτη ποιήσει» ἐν Ἱερουσαλὴμ, κιτ-λ. 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 393 


calypse of John,’ and Jerome mentions the treatise.? 
There can be no doubt that had Melito thrown the 
slightest doubt on the Apostolic origin of the Apocalypse, 
Kusebius, whose dogmatic views led him to depreciate 
that writing, would have referred to the fact. Eusebius 
also mentions that Apollonius, a Presbyter of Ephesus, 
quoted the Apocalypse against the Montanists, and 
there is reason to suppose that he did so as an Apos- 
tolic work. Eusebius further states that Theophilus of 
Antioch made use of testimony from the Apocalypse of 
John ;* but although, as Eusebius does not mention any- 
thing to the contrary, it is probable that Theophilus 
really recognized the book to be by John the Apostle, 
the uncritical haste of Eusebius renders his vague state- 
ment of little value. We do not think it worth while to 
quote the evidence of later writers. Although Irenzeus, 
who repeatedly assigns the Apocalypse to John, the 
disciple of the Lord,® is cited by Apologists as a very 
important witness, more especially from his intercourse 
with Polycarp, we do not attribute any value to his tes- 
timony, both from the late date at which he wrote, and 
from the singularly uncritical and credulous character 
of his mind. Although he appeals to the testimony of 
those “ who saw John face to face” with regard to the 
number of the name of the Beast, his own utter ignorance 
of the interpretation shows how little information he can 
have derived from Polycarp.° The same remarks apply 
still more strongly to Tertullian, who, however, most un- 
hesitatingly assigns the Apocalypse to the Apostle John.7 


1 Eusebius, H. E., iv. 26. 2 De Vir. IIl., 24. 

3 Eusebius, H. E., γ. 18. 4 7b., ἘΠ. E., iv. 24. 
5 Adv. Heer., iy. 20, § 11, 21, § 3, 30, § 4, &e., &e. 

6 Τὸν vy. 30. 


7 Ady. Mare,, iii. 14, 24, &e., &e. 


394 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


It would be useless more particularly to refer to later 
evidence, however, or quote even the decided testi- 
mony in its favour of Clement of Alexandria,’ or 
Origen? 

The first doubt cast upon the authenticity of the Apo- 
calypse occurs in the argument of Dionysius of Alex- 
andria, one of the disciples of Origen, in the middle of 
the third century. He mentions that some had objected 
to the whole work as without sense or reason, and as 
displaying such dense ignorance, that it was impossible 
that an apostle or even one in the Church, could have 
written it, and they assigned it to Cermthus, who held the 
doctrine of the reign of Christ on earth* These objec- 
tions, it is obvious, are merely dogmatic, and do not affect 
to be historical. They are in fact a good illustration of the 
method by which the Canon was formed. If the doctrine 
of any writing met with the approval of the early Church it 
was accepted with unhesitating faith, and its pretension 
to Apostolic origin was admitted as a natural consequence; 
but if, on the other hand, the doctrine of the writing 
was not clearly that of the community, it was rejected 
without further examination. It is an undeniable fact 
that not a single trace exists of the application of his- 
torical criticism to any book of the New Testament in 
the early ages of Christianity. The case of the Apo- 
calypse is most intelligible :—so long as the expectation 
and hope of a second advent and of a personal reign of 
the risen and glorified Christ, of the prevalence of which 
we have abundant testimony in the Pauline Epistles and 
other early works, continued to animate the Church, the 


1 Stromata, vi. 13, ξξ 106, 141. : 
3 Eusebius, H. E., vi. 25, in Joann. Opp. iv. p. 17. 
3 Kusehins, H. E., vii. 24. 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 395 


Apocalypse which excited and fostered them was a 
popular volume: but as years passed away and the 
general longing of Christians, eagerly marking the signs 
of the times, was again and again disappointed, and the 
hope of a Millennium began either to be abandoned or 
indefinitely postponed, the Apocalypse proportionately 
lost favour, or was regarded as an incomprehensible book, 
misleading the world by illusory promises. Its history 
is that of a highly dogmatic treatise esteemed or con- 
temned in proportion to the ebb and flow of opinion 
regarding the doctrines which it expresses. 

The objections of Dionysius, arising first from dogmatic 
grounds and his inability to understand the Apocalyptic 
utterances of the book, took the shape we have mentioned 
of a critical dilemma :—The author of the Gospel could 
not at the same time be the author of the Apocalypse. " 
Dogmatic predilection decided the question in favour of 
the fourth Gospel, and the reasoning by which that 
‘decision is arrived at has, therefore, no critical force 
or value. The fact still remains that Justin Martyr 
distinctly refers to the Apocalypse as the work of the 
Apostle John and, as we have seen, no similar testimony 
exists in support of the claims of the fourth Gospel. 

As another most important point, we may mention 
that there is probably not another work of the New Tes- 
tament the precise date of the composition of which, 
within a very few weeks, can so positively be affirmed. 
No result of criticism rests upon a more secure basis and 
is now more universally accepted by all competent critics 
than the fact that the Apocalypse was written in A.D. 
68-69.. The writer distinctly and repeatedly mentions 


1 Credner, Hinl. N. T., i, p. 705 ff.; Ewald, Jahrb. bibl. Wiss., v. 
p. 181 ff.; Gesch. V. Isr., vii. p. 227; Comment. in Apoc, Joh., 1828, 


396 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


his name: i. 1, “The revelation of Jesus Christ ... . 
unto his servant John;”! i. 4, “John to the seven 
churches which are in Asia,”? and he states that the work 
was written in the island of Patmos where he was “ on 
account of the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus.” 3 
Ewald, who decides in the most arbitrary manner against 
the authenticity of the Apocalypse and in favour of the 
Johannine authorship of the Gospel, objects that the 
author, although he certainly calls himself John, does 
not assume to be an Apostle, but merely terms himself 
the servant (δοῦλος) of Christ like other true Christians, 
and distinctly classes himself amongst the Prophets * and 
not amongst the Apostles.6 We find, however, that Paul, 
who was not apt to waive his claims to the Apostolate, 
was content to call himself: “Paul a servant (δοῦλος) of 
Jesus Christ, called to be an Apostle,” in writing to the 
Romans; (i. 1) and the superscription of the Epistle to 
the Philippians is: “ Paul and Timothy servants (δοῦλοι) 
of Christ Jesus.”® There was, moreover, reason why the 
author of the Book of Revelation, a work the form of 
which was decidedly based upon that of Daniel and 
other Jewish Apocalyptic writings, should rather adopt 
Die Joh. Schr., ii. p. 62; Guericke, Gesammtgesch., p. 171, p. 522 f.; 
Volkmar, Comment. zur Offenb. Joh., 1862, p. 7 ff.; Die Religion Jesu, 
p. 148; Hilgenfeld, Die Evangelien, p. 338; Davidson, Int. N. T., i. 
p- 347 ff. ; Liitzelberger, Die kirchl. Trad. Joh., p. 234; Renan, Vie de 
Jésus xiii™. ed. p. xxi. f.; L’Antechrist, p. 340 ff.; Réville, Rey. des 
deux Mondes, Oct. 1863, p. 623; Rey. de Théol., 1855, x. p. 4; Scholten, 
Das Ey. Joh., p. 401; Kayser, Rey. de Théol., 1856. xiii. p. 80. 

1 "Amoxadvyis ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ... .. τῷ δούλῳ αὐτοῦ ᾿Ιωάννῃ. 

2 Ἰωάννης ταῖς ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησίαις ταῖς ἐν τῇ ᾿Ασίᾳ. Cf.i. 9; xxii. 8. 

3.1, 9, dia τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ. .. 

4 Cf. ἀν... 9f.; xix. 9 f.; xxii. 6—9, 10, 16f., 18 f. 

5 Ewald, Die Joh. Schr., ii. p. 55 ff.; Jahrb. bibl. Wiss., v. p. 179 ff. 

6 We do not refer to the opening of the Epistle to Titus, nor to that 


which commences, ‘‘ James a servant (δοῦλος) of God,” &c., nor to the 
so-called ‘‘ Epistle of Jude,” all being too much disputed or apocryphal. . 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 397 


the character of Prophet than the less suitable designa- 
tion of Apostle upon such an occasion. It is clear that 
he counted fully upon being generally known under the 
simple designation of “John,” and when we consider the 
unmistakeable terms of authority with which he addresses 
the Seven Churches, it is scarcely possible to deny that 
the writer either was the Apostle, or distinctly desired 
to assume his personality. It is not necessary for us 
here to enter into any discussion regarding the “ Presbyter 
John,” for it is generally admitted that even he could 
not have had at that time any position in Asia Minor 
which could have warranted such a tone. If the name 
of Apostle, therefore, be not directly assumed—and it 
was not necessary to assume it—the authority of one is 
undeniably inferred. 

Ewald, however, argues: “On the contrary, indeed, 
the author could not more clearly express that he is not 
one of the Twelve, than when he imagines (Apoc. xxi. 14) 
the names of the ‘twelve apostles of the Lamb’ shining 
upon the twelve foundation stones of the wall of the future 
heavenly Jerusalem. He considered that he could not 
sufficiently elevate the names and the lustre of these 
Twelve, and he gave them in his own mind the highest 
external honour which he could confer upon them. No 
intelligent person ever gives such extreme honour and 
such sparkling lustre to himself, still less does he determine 
himself to give them, or himself actually anticipates the 
eternal glorification which God alone can give to him, 
and boasts of it before men. And could one seriously 
believe that one of the Twelve, yea, that even he whom 
we know as the most delicate and fine minded amongst 
them, could have written this of himself?”! Now, 


1 In making these translations from German writers, and more especi-~ 


398 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


in the first place, we must remark that im this dis- 
cussion it is quite absurd to speak of .owr knowing John 
the Apostle as distinguished above all the rest of the 
Twelve for such qualities. Nowhere do we find such a 
representation of him except in the fourth Gospel, if 
even there, but, as we shall presently see, rather the 
contrary, and the fourth Gospel cannot here be received 
as evidence. It is the misfortune of this whole problem 
that many critics are so fascinated by the beauty of the 
fourth Gospel that they sacrifice sense and reason in 
order to support it. Returning to these objections, how- 
ever, we might by way of retort point out to those who 
assert the inspiration of the Apocalypse, that the sym- 
bolical representation of the heavenly Jerusalem is objec- 
tive, and not a mere subjective sketch coloured according 
to the phantasy of the writer. Passing on, however, it 
must be apparent that the whole account of the heavenly 
city is typical, and that in basing its walls upon the 
Twelve, he does not glorify himself personally, but simply 
gives its place to the idea which was symbolized when 
ally from Ewald, we have preferred to adhere closely to the sense and 
style of the original, however involved and laboured, rather than secure 
a more smooth and elegant English version, at the risk of misrepresen- 
tation, by a mere paraphrase of the German. ‘‘ Vielmehr kann ja der ver- 
fasser dass er keiner der Zwoélfe war nicht deutlicher ausdriicken als 
indem er Apoc, 21, 14, die namen der ‘zwélf Apostel des Lammes,’ aut 
den 12 grundsteinen der mauer des kiinftigen himmlischen Jerusalems 
prangend sich denkt. Er meinte also die namen und den glanz dieser 
Zwilfe nicht genug erheben zu kénnen und gab ihnen im eigenen geiste 
die héchste iussere ehre welche er ihnen zuweisen konnte. Solche héchste 
ehre und solchen funkelnden glanz gibt kein irgend verstindiger sich 
selbst, noch weniger beschliesst er sich selbst sie zu geben, oder nimmt 
gar die ewige verherrlichung welche ihm allein Gott geben kann sich 
selbst yorweg und rithmt sich ihrer vor den menschen. Und man kénnte 
sich ernstlich einbilden, einer der Zwilfe, ja sogar dér welchen wir sonst 
unter ihnen als den zartesten und feinsten kennen, werde dies yon sich 


selbst geschrieben haben?” Jahrb. bibl. Wiss., y. p. 180 f.; ef. Die Joh. 
- Schr., ii. p. 56 f. 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 399 


Jesus is represented as selecting twelve disciples, the 
munber of the twelve tribes, upon whose preaching the 
spiritual city was to be built up. ‘The Jewish belief in 
the special preference of the Jews before all nations led 
up to this, and it forms part of the strong Hebraistic 
form of the writer’s Christianity. The heavenly city is 
simply a glorified Jerusalem ; the twelve Apostles, re- 
presentatives of the twelve tribes, set apart for the 
regeneration of Israel—as the seventy disciples, the 
number of the nations of the earth, are sent out to regene- 
rate the Gentiles—are the foundation-stones of the New 
City with its twelve gates, on which are written the 
names of the twelve tribes of Israel,’ for whom the city 
is more particularly provided. For 144,000 of Israel 
are first sealed, 12,000 of each of the twelve tribes, 
before the Seer beholds the great multitude of all nations 
and tribes and peoples.2 The whole description is a 
mere allegory of the strongest Jewish dogmatic character, ᾿ 
and it is of singular value for the purpose of identifying 
the author. 

Moreover, the apparent glorification of the ‘Twelve is 
more than justified by the promise which Jesus is repre- 
sented by the Synoptics* as making to them in person. 
When Peter, in the name of the Twelve, asks what is 
reserved for them who have forsaken all and followed 
him, Jesus replies: “ Verily I say unto you that ye 
which have followed me, in the regeneration when the 
Son of Man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also 
shall be set upon twelve thrones judging the twelve 
tribes of Israel.”* Ewald himself, in his distribution to 
the supposed original sources of the materials of our 


1 Apoe, xxi. 12. 2 Ib., vii. 4—9. 
3 Matt. xix. 27, 28; Luke xii, 28—30. 4 Matt. xix. 28. 


400 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


existing first Synoptic, assigns this passage to the very 
oldest Gospel. What impropriety is there, and what 
improbability, therefore, that an Apostle in an ecstatic 
and dogmatic allegory of the spiritual Jerusalem should 
represent the names of the twelve Apostles as inscribed 
upon the twelve foundation stones, as the names of the 
twelve tribes of Israel were inscribed upon the twelve 
gates of the City? On the contrary, we submit that it is 
probable under the circumstances that an Apostle should 
make such a representation, and in view of the facts 
regarding the Apostle John himself which we have from 
the Synoptics, it is particularly in harmony with his 
character, and these characteristics, we shall see, directly 
tend to establish his identity with the author. 

“ How much less, therefore, is it credible of the 
Apostle John,” says Ewald, elsewhere, in pursuing the 
same argument, “who as a writer is so incomparably 
modest and delicate in feeling, that he does not in a single 
one of his genuine published writings name himself as 
the author, or at all proclaim his own praise.”? This is 
merely sentimental assumption of facts to which we shall 
hereafter allude, but if the “incomparable modesty ” of 
which he speaks really existed, nothing could more con- 
clusively separate the author of the fourth Gospel from the 
son of Zebedee whom we know in the Synoptics, or more 
support the claims of the Apocalypse. Now, in the first 
place, we must assert that, in writing a serious history 
of the life and teaching of Jesus, full of marvellous 
‘events and astounding doctrines, the omission of his 
name by an Apostle can not only not be recognized as 
genuine modesty, but must be condemned as culpable 

neglect. It is perfectly incredible that an Apostle could 


1 Die drei ersten Evy. 3 Die Joh. Schr., ii. p. 56 f. 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 401 


have written such a work without attaching his name as 
the guarantee of his intimate acquaintance with the events 
and statements he records. What would be thought of a 
historian who published a history without a single refer- 
ence to recognized authorities, and yet who did not 
declare even his own name as some evidence of his truth? 
The fact is, that the first two Synoptics bear no author’s 
name because they are not the work of any one man, but 
the collected materials of many ; the third Synoptic only 
pretends to be a compilation for private use; and the 
fourth Gospel bears no simple signature because it is 
neither the work of an Apostle, nor of an eye-witness of 
the events and hearer of the teaching it records. 

If it be considered incredible, however, that an Apostle 
could, even in an Allegory, represent the names of the 
Twelve as written on the foundation stones of the New 
Jerusalem, and the incomparable modesty and delicacy 
of feeling of the assumed author of the fourth Gospel be 
contrasted with it so much to the disadvantage of the 
writer of the Apocalypse, we ask whether this reference 
to the collective Twelve can be considered at all ona par 
with the self-glorification of the disguised author of the 
Gospel, who, not content with the simple indication of 
himself as John a servant of Jesus Christ, and with 
sharing distinction equally with the rést of the Twelve, 
assumes to himself alone a pre-eminence in the favour and 
affection of his Master, as well as a distinction amongst 
his fellow disciples, of which we first hear from himself, 
and which is anything but corroborated by the three Sy- 
noptics ? The supposed author of the fourth Gospel, it is 
true, does not plainly mention his name, but he distin- 
euishes himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” 


and represents himself as “leaning on Jesus’ breast at 
VOL, 11. DD 


402 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


supper.”! This distinction assumed to himself, and this 
preference over the other disciples in the love of him 
whom he represents as God, is much greater self-glorifi- 
cation than that of the author of the Apocalypse. We 
shall presently see how far Ewald is right in saying, 
moreover, that the author does not clearly indicate the 
person for whom at least he desires to be mistaken. 

We must conclude that these objections have no 
weight, and that there is no internal evidence whatever 
against the supposition that the “John” who announces 
himself as the author of the Apocalypse was the Apostle. 
On the contrary the tone of authority adopted through- 
out, and the evident certainty that his identity would 
everywhere be recognized, denote a position in the 
Church which no other person of the name of John could 
possibly have held at the time when the Apocalypse was 
written. The external evidence, therefore, which indi- 
cates the Apostle John as the author of the Apocalypse 
is quite in harmony with the internal testimony of the 
book itself. We have already pointed out the strong 
colouring of Judaism in the views of the writer. Its 
imagery is thoroughly Jewish, and its allegorical repre- 
sentations are entirely based upon Jewish traditions, and 
hopes. The heavenly City is a New Jerusalem ; its 
twelve gates are dedicated to the twelve tribes of Israel ; 
God and the Lamb are the Temple of it ; and the sealed 
of the twelve tribes have the precedence over the nations, 
and stand with the Lamb on Mount Zion (xiv. 1) having 
his name and his Father’s written on their foreheads. 
We have already stated that the language in which the 
book is written is the most Hebraistic Greek of the New 
Testament, as its contents are the most deeply tinged 

1 John xiii. 23; xix. 26, 27; xx. 2f.; ef. xxi. 20 fff, 








AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 403 


with Judaism. If, finally, we seek for some traces of the 
character of the writer, we see in every page the impress 
of an impetuous fiery spirit, whose symbol is the Eagle, 
breathing forth vengeance against the enemies of the 
Messiah, and impatient till it be accomplished, and the 
whole of the visions of the Apocalypse proceed to the 
accompaniment of the rolling thunders of God’s wrath. 
We may now turn to examine such historical data as 
exist regarding John the son of Zebedee, and to inquire 
whether they accord better with the character and 
opinions of the author of the Apocalypse or of the Evan- 
gelist. John and his brother James are represented by 
the Synoptics as being the sons of Zebedee and Salome. 
They were fishermen on the sea of Galilee, and at the 
call of Jesus they left their ship and their father and 
followed him.? Their fiery and impetuous character led 
Jesus to give them the surname of Βοανηργές: “ Sons 
of thunder,’? an epithet justified by several incidents 
which are related regarding them. Upon one occasion, 
John sees one casting out devils in his master’s name, 
and in an intolerant spirit forbids him- because he did 
not follow them, for which he is rebuked by Jesus.* 
Another time, when the inhabitants of a Samaritan 
village would not receive them, John and James angrily 
turn to Jesus and say: “Lord, wilt thou that we 
command fire to come down from heaven, and consume 
them, even as Elijah did?”* One remarkable episode 
will have presented itself already to the mind of every 
reader, which the second Synoptic Gospel narrates as 
follows: Mark x. 35, “ And James and John the sons of 
Zebedee come unto him saying unto him: Teacher, we 
1 Matt. iv. 21 f.; Mark i. 19 f.; Luke vy. 19 ff. 2 Mark iii. 17. 


3 Mark ix. 38 f.; Luke ix. 49 f. 4 Luke ix. 54 fff, 
DD 2 


404 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall 
ask thee. 36. And he said unto them: What would ye 
that I should do for you? 37. They said unto him: 
Grant that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the 
other on thy left hand in thy glory. 38. But Jesus said 
to them’: Ye know not what ye ask: can’ye drink 
the cup that I drink ? or be baptised with the baptism 
that I am baptized with? 39. And they said unto 
him: We can. And Jesus said unto them: The cup 
that I drink ye shall drink ; and the baptism that I am 
baptised withal shall ye be baptised: 40. But to sit on 
my right hand or on my left hand is not mine to give, 
but for whom it is prepared. 41. And when the ten 
heard it they began to be much displeased with James. 
and John.” It is difficult to say whether the effrontery 
and selfishness of the request, or the assurance with 
which the brethren assert their power to emulate the - 
Master is more striking in this scene. Apparently the 
grossness of the proceeding already began to be felt 
when our first Gospel was ‘edited, for it represents the 
request as made by the mother of James and John ; but 
that is a very slight decrease of the offence, inasmuch as 
the brethren are obviously consenting, if not inciting 
parties in the prayer, and utter their “‘ We can” with 
the same absence of “incomparable modesty.”! : After 
the death of Jesus, John remained in Jerusalem,? and 
chiefly confined his ministry to the city and its neigh- 
bourhood.? The account which Hegesippus gives of 
James the brother of Jesus who was appointed overseer 
of the Church in Jerusalem, will not be forgotten,* and 
-we refer to it merely in illustration of primitive Chris- 


1 Matt. xx. 20 ff. : 2 Acts i. 13; iii. 1. 
% Acts vill. 25; xv.1ff ‘* Eusebius, H. E., ii. 233; cf. yol. i. p. 435 f. 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 405 


tianity. However mythical elements are worked up 
into the narrative, one point is undoubted fact, that 
the Christians of that community were but a sect of 
Judaism, merely superadding to Mosaic doctrines belief 
in the actual advent of the Messiah whom Moses and the 
prophets had foretold ; and we find, in the Acts of the 
Apostles, Peter and John represented as “going up into 
the Temple at the hour of prayer,’! like other Jews. In 
the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, we have most valuable 
evidence with regard to the Apostle John. Paul found 
him still in Jerusalem on the occasion of the visit referred 
to in that letter, about a.p. 50—53. We need not quote 
at length the important passage Gal. ii. 1 ff, but the fact 
is undeniable, and stands upon stronger evidence than 
almost any other particular regarding the early Church, 
being distinctly and directly stated by Paul himself: that 
the three “pillar” Apostles representing the Church 
there were James, Peter, and John. Peter is markedly 
termed the Apostle of the circumcision, and the differences 
between him and Paul are evidence of the opposition of 
their views. James and John are clearly represented as 
sharing the views of Peter, and whilst Paul finally agrees 
with them that he is to go to the Gentiles, the three 
στῦλοι elect to continue their ministry to the circum- 
cision.2, Here is John, therefore, clearly devoted to the 
Apostleship of the circumcision as opposed to Paul, 
whose views, we may gather from the whole of Paul’s 
account, were little more than tolerated by the στῦλοι. 
Before leaving New Testament data we may here 
point out the statement in the Acts of the Apostles that 
Peter and John were known to be “unlettered and 
ignorant men”? (ἄνθρωποι ἀγράμματοι καὶ ἰδιῶται). 
1 Acts iii. 1. f. 2 Gal. ii. 8—9. § Acts iy. 13, 


406 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


Later tradition mentions one or two circumstances regard- 
ing John to which we may briefly refer. Jrenzeus states: . 
“There are those who heard him (Polycarp) say that 
John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus 
and perceiving Cerinthus within rushed forth from the 
bath-house without bathing, but crying out: ‘ Let us fly 
lest the bath-house fall down : Cerinthus, the enemy of 
the truth, being within it.’ . . . So great was the 
aversion which the Apostles and their disciples had to 
holding any intercourse with any of the corrupters of the 
truth,” &c. Polycrates, who was Bishop of Ephesus 
about the beginning of the third century, also states that 
the Apostle John wore the mitre and petalon of the 
high priest (ds ἐγενήθη ἱερεὺς τὸ πέταλον πεφορηκὼς ),? a 
tradition which agrees with the Jewish tendencies of the 
Apostle of the circumcision as Paul describes him.? 

Now if we compare these data regarding John the son 
of Zebedee with the character of John the author of the 
Apocalypse as we trace it in the work itself, it is impos- 
sible not to be struck by the singular agreement. The 
barbarous Hebraistic Greek and abrupt inelegant diction 
are natural to the unlettered fisherman of Galilee, and 
the fierce and intolerant spirit which pervades the book 
is precisely that which formerly forbade the working of 


1 Ireneus, Ady. Heer., iii. 3, § 4; Eusebius. H. E., iv. 14. 

2 Eusebius, H. E., iii. 31. 

3 We need not refer to any of the other legends regarding John, but it 
may be well to mention the tradition common amongst the Fathers which 
assigned to him the cognomen of “ the Virgin.” One Codex gives as the 
superscription of the Apocalypse: ““τοῦ ἁγίου ἐνδοξοτάτου ἀποστόλου καὶ 
εὐαγγελιστοῦ παρθένου ἠγαπημένου ἐπιστηθίου Ἰωάννου θεολόγου,᾽" and we know 
that it is reported in early writings that, of all the Apostles, only John 
and the Apostle Paul remained unmarried, whence probably, in part, 
this title. In connection with this we may point to the importance 
attached to virginity in the Apocalypse, xiv. 4; cf. Schwegler, Das nachap. 
Zeit., ii. p. 254; Liicke, Comm. 0. ἃ, Br. Joh., 1836, p. 82 f.; Credner, 
ἘΝ, T.,:1. p: 21. 


—_ ae 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 407 


miracles even in the name of the Master by any not of 
the immediate circle of Jesus, and which desired to 
consume an inhospitable village with fire from heaven.’ 
The Judaistic form of Christianity which is represented 
throughout the Apocalypse, and the Jewish elements 
which enter so largely into its whole composition, are 
precisely those which we might expect from John the 
Apostle of the circumcision and the associate of James 
and of Peter in the very centre of Judaism, as we find 
him deseribed by Paul. Parts of the Apocalypse, indeed, 
derive a new significance when we remember the oppo- 


_ sition which the Apostle of the Gentiles met with from 


the Apostles of the circumcision, as plainly declared by 
Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians ii. 1 ff., and apparent 
in other parts of his writings. 

We have already seen the scarcely disguised attack 
which is made on Paul in the Clementine Homilies under 
the name of Simon the Magician, the Apostle Peter fol- 
lowing him from city to city for the purpose of denounc- 
ing and refuting his teaching. There can be no doubt 
that the animosity against Paul which was felt by the 
Ebionitic party, to which John as well as Peter belonged, 
was extreme, and when the novelty of the doctrine of 
justification by faith alone, taught by him, is considered, 
it is very comprehensible. In the Apocalypse, we find 
undeniable traces of it which accord with what Paul 
himself says, and with the undoubted tradition of the 
early Church. Not only is Paul silently excluded from 
the number of the Apostles, which might be intelligible 


1 The very objection of Ewald regarding the glorification of the Twelve, 
if true, would be singularly in keeping with the audacious request of 
John and his brother, to sit on the right and left hand of the glorified 
Jesus, for we find none of the “ incomparable modesty ” which the imagi- 
native critic attributes to the author of the fourth Gospel in the John of 
the Synoptics. 


408 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


when the typical nature of the number twelve is con- 
sidered, but allusion is undoubtedly made to him, in the 
Epistles to the Churches. It is clear that Paul is 
referred to in the address to the Church of Ephesus : 
“And thou didst try them which say that they are 
Apostles and are not, and didst find them false ;’’? and 
also in the words to the Church of Smyrna: “ But 1 
have a few things against thee, because thou hast there 
them that hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught 
Balak to cast a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, 
to eat things sacrificed unto idols,” ? &c., as well as else- 
where. Without dwelling on this point, however, we 
think it must be apparent to every unprejudiced person 
that the Apocalypse singularly corresponds’ in every 
respect—language, construction, and thought—with what 
we are told of the character of the Apostle John by the 
Synoptic Gospels and by tradition, and that the internal 
evidence, therefore, accords with the external, in attri- 
buting the composition of the Apocalypse rather than 
the Gospel to that Apostle. We may without hesitation 


1 Apoc., Hi. 2. + ΖΡ. αἱ, 14, of..9; 20 £. ii1..9. 

3 Baur, Unters. kan. Evv., pp. 345 ff., 376 ff.; Theol. Jahrb., 1844, 
p-. 661 ff.; Bertholdt, Hinl. A. ἃ. N. T., iv. p. 1800—1875; A. C. Danne- 
mann, Wer ist der Verfasser. der Offenb. Johannis? 1841; Ebrard, Das 
Ey. Johann, p. 137 ff.; Die evang. Gesch., p. 847 ff.; Hichhorn, Einl. 
N. T., ii. p. 375 ff.; Evanson, Dissonance, &c., 1792; Feilmoser, Einl. 
N. B., p. 569 ff. ; Guericke, Gesammtgesch., p. 498 ff. ; Beitrage, p. 181 ff. ; 
Hase, Die Tiib. Schule, p. 25 ff.; Hdanlein, Hinl. N. T., i. p. 220 ff. ; 
Hartwig, Apol. ἃ. Apoc., u. s. w., 1780; Hévernick, Lucubr. crit. ad 
Apoc. spectantur, 1842; Hengstenberg, Die Offenb. ἃ. heil. Johann., 1849 ; 
Hilgenfeld, Die Evyangelien, p. 338; Zeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1868, p. 
203, anm.1; Hug, Einl. N. T., ii. p. 496 ff.; Kleuker, Urspr. u. Zweck 
Offenb. Joh., 1799; F. 4, Knittel, Beitrag z. Krit. Joh. Offenb., 1773; 
Kolthof, Apoc. Joanni apost. vindicata, 1834; J. P. Lange, in Tholuck’s 
Lit. Anzeiger, 1838, No. 20 ff.; Vermischt. Schr., ii. p. 173 ff. ; Lechler, 
Das ap. u. nachap. Zeit., p. 197 ff.; Liéderwald, Beurth. u. Erkl. Offenb. 
Johann., 1788; Niermeyer, Verhandel. over Echth. Joh. Schr., 1862 ; 
Olshausen, Echtheit. ἃ, y. kan. Eyy., 1832; Renan, Vie de Jésus, xiii™ 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 409- 


affirm, at least, that with the exception of one or two of 
the Epistles of Paul there is no work of the New Tes- 
tament which is supported by such close evidence. 

We need not discuss the tradition as to the residence 
of the Apostle John in Asia Minor, regarding which 
much might be said. Those who accept the authenticity 
of the Apocalypse of course admit its composition in the 


ed. p. lxxi. f.; L’Antechrist, 1873, p. xxii. ff., p. 340 ff. ; Reithmayr, Einl. 
N. T., p. 774 ff. ; Réville (doubtful), Rey. des Deux Mondes, Octr. 1863, 
p. 633; Riggenbach, Die Zeugn. Evang. Joh., p. 30 ff. ; Scholten, Das 
Evang. Joh., p. 399 ff.; Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., ii. p. 249 ff. ; 
_ Schnitzer, Theol. Jahrb., 1842, p. 451 ff.; Storr, N. Apol. ἃ. Offenb. Joh. 
1783; Zweck ἃ. evang. Gesch. u. Br. Joh., 1786, pp. 70 ff., 83, 163; 
C. Κ΄. Schmidt, Unters. Offenb. Joh., 1771; Thiersch, Die Kirche im. ap. 
Zeit., p. 245 f.; Tholuck, Glaubw. evang. Gesch., p. 280 ff. ; Volkmar, 
Comment. Offenb. Joh., 1862, p. 38 ff.; Weisse, Die evang. Gesch., i. 
p- 98, anm. 3; Zeller, Theol. Jahrb., 1842, p. 654 ff., ἄο., &e. 

We do not of course pretend to give a complete list of those who assert 
or deny the apostolic authorship of the Apocalypse, but merely refer to 
those whom we have noted down. ‘The following deny the apostolic — 
authorship : Bleek, Beitrige, p. 190-200; Ballenstedt, Philo τι. Johannes, 
u. 5. W., 1812; Bretschneider, Probabilia, p. 150 ff.; Credner, Hinl. N. T., 
i. p. 732 ff.; Corrodi, Versuch Beleucht. ἃ. Gesch. Bibelkanons, 1792, 
li. p. 303 ff.; Cludius, Uransichten ἃ. Christenth. Alt., 1808, p. 312 ff. ; 
Diisterdieck, H’buch. Offenb. Joh., 1859; Ewald, Jahrb. bibl. Wiss ., v. 
1852—53, p. 179 ff.; Comment. in Apoc. Joh., 1829, proleg. § 8; Die 
Joh. Schr., ii. p. 55 ff.; Gesch. V. Isr., vi. p. 694, vii. p. 227; Hitzig, 
Ueber Johan. Marcus u. s. Scriften; Kayser (doubtful), Rev. de Théol., 
1856, xiii. p. 85; Keim, Jesu v. Nazara, i. p. 159 f.; Léicke, Einl. Offenb. 
Joh., ii. pp. 491 ff., 802; Th. Studien τι. Krit., 1836, p. 654 ff.; Luther, 
Preef. in Apoc., 1552; Liitzelberger, Die kirchl. Trad. ap. Joh., 1840, pp. 
198 f., 210 ff.; Michaelis, Einl. N.T., ii. p. 1573 ff.; Meander, Gesch. 
Pflanz. u. s. w. Chr. Kirche, 1862, p. 481 f.; Neudecker, Hinl. N, T., 
p. 757 ff. ; Semler, Neue Unters. ἅδον Apoc., 1776; Abhandl. Unters. ἃ. 
Kanons, i. Anhang; Stroth, Freimithige Unters. Offenb. Joh. betreffend, 
1771; Schott, Isagoge, δὲ 114 ff., p. 473 ff. ; Schleiermacher, Einl. N. T., 
p- 470 f.; Weizsdcker, Unters. evang. Gesch., pp. 195, 234 ff. 

Although many of those who assign the Apocalypse to the Apostle 
John are apologists who likewise assert that he wrote the Gospel, very 
many accept the authenticity of the Apocalypse as opposed to that of the 
Gospel in the dilemma which we have stated. On the other hand not a few 
of those who reject the Apocalypse equally reject the Gospel, and consider 
that neither the one nor the other is apostolic. 


410 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


neighbourhood of Ephesus,’ and see in this the con- 
firmation of the wide-spread tradition that the Apostle " 
spent a considerable period of the latter part of his life 
in that city. We may merely mention, in passing, that 
a historical basis for the tradition has occasionally been 
disputed, and has latterly again been denied by some 
able critics.?. The evidence for this as for everything else 
connected with the early ages of Christianity is extremely 
unsatisfactory. Nor need we trouble ourselves with the 
dispute as to the Presbyter John, to whom many ascribe 
the composition, on the one hand, of the Apocalypse, 
and, on the other, of the Gospel, according as they finally — 
accept the one or the other alternative of the critical 
dilemma which we have explained. We have only to 
do with the Apostle John and his connection with either 
of the two writings. 

If we proceed to compare the character of the Apostle 
John, as we have it depicted in the Synoptics and other 
writings to which we have referred, with that of the 
author of the fourth Gospel, and to contrast the pecu- 
liarities of both, we have avery different result. Instead 
of the Hebraistic Greek and harsh diction which might 
be expected from the unlettered and ignorant fisherman 
of Galilee, we find, in the fourth Gospel, the purest and 
least Hebraistic Greek of any of the Gospels (some parts 
of the third Synoptic, perhaps, alone excepted), and a 
refinement and beauty of composition whose charm has 
captivated the world, and in too many cases overpowered 
the calm exercise of judgment. Instead of the fierce 
and intolerant temper of the Son of thunder, we find a 


1 Apoc. i. 9. 
2 Keim, Jesu y. Nazara, i. p. 162 ff.; Scholten, De Apostel Johannes 
in Klein-Azié, 1871. 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 411 


spirit breathing forth nothing but gentleness and love. 
Instead of the Judaistic Christianity of the Apostle of 
Circumcision, who merely tolerates Paul, we find a mind 
which has so completely detached itself from Judaism 
that the writer makes the very appellation of “Jew” 
equivalent to that of an enemy of the truth. Not only 
are the customs and feasts of the Jews disregarded and 
spoken of as observances of a people with whom the 
writer has no concern, but he anticipates the day when 
neither on Mount Gerizim nor yet at Jerusalem men 
shall worship the Father, but when it shall be recognized 
that the only true worship is that which is offered in 
spirit and in truth. Faith in Jesus Christ and the merits 
of his death is the only way by which man can attain to 
eternal life, and the Mosaic Law is practically abolished. 
We venture to assert that, taking the portrait of John 
the son of Zebedee, which is drawn in the Synoptics and 
the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, supplemented by 
later tradition, to which we have referred, and comparing 
it with that of the writer of the fourth Gospel, no un- 
prejudiced mind can fail to recognize that there are not 
two features alike. 

It is the misfortune of this case, that the beauty of the 
Gospel under trial has too frequently influenced the 
decision of the judges, and men who have, in other 
matters, exhibited sound critical judgment, in this 
abandon themselves to sheer sentimentality, and indulge 
in rhapsodies when reasons would be more appropriate. 
Bearing in mind that we have given the whole of the 
data regarding John the son of Zebedee, furnished by 
New Testament writings,—excluding merely the fourth 
Gospel itself, which, of course, cannot at present be 
received in evidence,—as well as the only traditional 


412 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


information which, from its date and character, possesses 
the smallest value, it will become apparent that every 
argument which proceeds on the assumption that John 
was the beloved disciple, and possessed of characteristics 
quite different from what we meet with in the writings 
to which we have referred, is worthless and a mere 
petitio principii. We can, therefore, appreciate the state 
of the case when, for instance, we find an able man like 
Credner commencing his inquiry as to who was the 
author of the fourth Gospel with such words as the 
following: ‘‘ Were we entirely without historical data 
regarding the author of the fourth Gospel, who is not 
named in the writing itself, we could still from internal 
grounds lying in the Gospel itself—from the nature of 
the language, from the freshness and intuitive perception 
of the narrative, from the exactness and precision of the ~ 
statements, from the peculiar manner of the mention of 
the Baptist and of the sons of Zebedee, from that which 
the writer brings to light for the inspiration of increasing 
love and fervour towards Jesus, from the irresistible 
charm which is poured out over the whole ideally-com- 
posed evangelical history, from the philosophical con- 
siderations with which the Gospel begins—be led to the 
result : that the author of such a Gospel can only be a 
native of Palestine, can only be a direct eye-witness, 
can only be an Apostle, can only be a favourite of Jesus, 
can only be that John whom Jesus held captivated © 
to himself by the whole heavenly spell of his teaching, 
that John who rested on the bosom of Jesus, stood 
beneath his cross, and whose later residence in a city 
like Ephesus proves that philosophical speculation not 
merely attracted him, but that he also knew how to 
maintain his place amongst philosophically cultivated 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 413 


Greeks.”! It is almost impossible to proceed further 
in building up theory upon baseless assumption ; but 
we shall hereafter see that he is kept in countenance by 
Ewald, who outstrips him in the boldness and minute- 
ness of his conjectures. We must now more carefully 
examine the details of the case. 

The language in which the Gospel is written, as we 
have already mentioned, is much less Hebraic than that 
of the other Gospels, with the exception, perhaps, of 
parts of the Gospel according to Luke, and its Hebraisms 
are not on the whole greater than was almost invariably 
the case with Hellenic Greek, but its composition is 
distinguished by peculiar smoothness; grace, and beauty, 
and in this respect it is assigned the first rank amongst 
the Gospels. It may be remarked that the connection 
which Credner finds between the language and the 
Apostle John arises out of the supposition, that long 
residence in Ephesus had enabled him to acquire that 
facility of composition in the Greek language which is 
one of its characteristics. Ewald, who exaggerates the 
Hebraism of the work, resorts nevertheless to the con- 
jecture, which we shall hereafter more fully consider, 
that the Gospel was written from dictation by young 
friends of John in Ephesus, who put the aged Apostle’s 
thoughts in many places into purer Greek as they 
wrote them down.? The arbitrary nature of such an 
explanation, adopted in one shape or another by many 
apologists, requires no remark, but we shall at every 
turn meet with similar assumptions advanced to overcome 
difficulties. Now, although there is no certain information 
as to the time when, if ever, the Apostle removed into 
Asia Minor, it is pretty certain that he did not leave 

1 Credner, Einl. N. T., i. p. 208. 2 Die Joh. Schr., i. p. 50 f. 


414 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


Palestine before A.D, 60.2. We find him still at Jerusalem 
about A.D. 50—53, when Paul went thither, and he had 
not at that time any intention of leaving, but, on the 
contrary, his dedication of himself to the ministry of 
the circumcision is distinctly mentioned by the Apostle.? 
The “unlettered and ignorant” fisherman of Galilee, 
therefore, had obviously attained an age when habits of 
thought and expression have become fixed, and when a 
new language cannot without great difficulty be acquired. 
If we consider the Apocalypse to be his work, we find 
positive evidence of such markedly different thought and 
language actually existing when the Apostle must have 
been at least between sixty and seventy years of age, 
that it is quite impossible to conceive that he could have 
subsequently acquired the language and mental charac- 
teristics of the fourth Gospel. It would be perfectly 
absurd, so far as language goes, to find in the fourth 
Gospel the slightest indication of the Apostle John, of 
whose language indeed we have no information whatever 
except from the Apocalypse, a composition which, if 
accepted as written by the Apostle, would at once 
exclude all consideratian of the Gospel as his work. 
There are many circumstances, however, which seem 
clearly to indicate that the author of the fourth Gospel 
was neither a native of Palestine nor a Jew, and to some 
of these we must briefly refer. The philosophical state- 
ments with which the Gospel commences, it will be 
admitted, are anything but characteristic of the Son of 


1 Tt is certain that John did not remove to Asia Minor during Paul’s 
time. There is no trace of him in the Pauline Epistles. Cf. De Wette, 
ἘΠῚ]. N. T., p. 221. 2 Gal. ii. 9. 

3 Ewald, Die Joh. Schr., ii. p. 62 ἢ; Hilgenfeld, Die Evangelien, 
p. 340 f.; Keim, Jesu vy. Nazara, i. p. 159; De Wette, Hinl. N. T., p. 419, 
anm, ἃ, , 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 415 


thunder, the ignorant and unlearned fisherman of Galilee 
who, to a comparatively advanced period of life, con- 
tinued preaching in his native country to his brethren of 
the circumcision. Attempts have been made to trace 
the Logos doctrine of the fourth Gospel to the purely 
Hebraic source of the Old Testament, but every impartial 
mind must perceive that here there is no direct and 
simple transformation of the theory of Wisdom of the 
Proverbs and Old Testament Apocrypha, and no mere 
development of the later Memra of the Targums, but a 
very advanced application to Christianity of Alexandrian 
philosophy, with which we have become familiar through 
the writings of Philo, to which reference has so frequently 
been made. It is quite true that a decided step beyond 
the doctrine of Philo is made when the Logos is repre- 
sented as σὰρξ ἐγένετο in the person of Jesus, but this 
argument is equally applicable to the Jewish doctrine of 
Wisdom, and that step had already been taken before 
the composition of the Gospel. In the Alexandrian 
philosophy everything was prepared for the final appli- 
cation of the doctrine, and nothing is more clear than 
the fact that the writer of the fourth Gospel was well 
acquainted with the teaching of the Alexandrian school, 
from which he derived his philosophy, and its elaborate 
and systematic application to Jesus alone indicates a 
late development of Christian doctrine, which we main- 
tain could not have been attained by the Judaistic son 
of Zebedee." 

We have already on several occasions referred to the 
attitude which the writer of the fourth Gospel assumes 
towards the Jews. Apart from the fact that he places 


1 Most critics agree that the characteristics of the fourth Gospel render 
the supposition that it was the work of an old man untenable. 


416 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


Christianity generally in strong antagonism to Judaism, 
as light to darkness, truth to a lie, and presents the 
doctrine of a hypostatic Trinity in the most developed 
form to be found in the New Testament, in striking 
᾿ contrast to the three Synoptics, and in contradiction to 
Hebrew Monotheism, he writes at all times as one who 
not only is not a Jew himself, but has nothing to do with 
their laws and customs. He speaks everywhere of the 
feasts “of the Jews,’ “the passover of the Jews,” “the 
manner of the purifying of the Jews,” “the Jews’ feast 
of tabernacles,” “as the manner of the Jews is to bury,” 
“the Jews’ preparation day,” and so οὐ. The Law of 
Moses is spoken of as “your law,” “their law,” as of a 
people with which the writer was not connected.? More- 
over, the Jews are represented as continually in virulent 
opposition to Jesus, and seeking to kill him; and the 
word “Jew” is the unfailing indication of the enemies 
of the truth, and the persecutors of the Christ.s The 
Jews are not once spoken of as the favoured people of 
God, but they are denounced as “ children of the devil,” 
who is “the father of hes and a murderer from the 
beginning.”* The author shows in a marked way that 
he was not a Jew, by making Caiaphas, and the chief 
_ priests and Pharisees speak of the Jewish nation and the 
people not as 6 λαός, like the Synoptics and other New 
Testament writings,® but as τὸ ἔθνος, the term always 
employed by the Jews to designate the Gentiles.® A 

1 John ii. 6, 13; y.1; vi. 4; vii. 2; xix. 40, 42, &., &e. 

2 16.5 Vis 110: Kok Ss ΧΥ. oy OC. (τὸς 

* Ib., τὸ 16, 18; vii. 13, 19 f.; vit. 40, 59; ix. 22, 28; xviii. 91 ff. ;_ 
xix. 12 ff. * John viii. 44, 

5 Matt. i. 21; 11.6; iv. 6; xiii. 15; xv. 8; xxi. 23, &., &c. Mark 
vii. 63 xi B25 xiv. 2, &c. Luke. 10, 17,21, 68, 77; 11.103 ni. 15: yi. 


17; vii. 16; xvi. 43, &€., &e. 
6 John xi. 48, 50, 51, 52; cf. xviii. 35. The word λαός is only twice 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 417 


single instance of the distinctive use of these words may 
be given. Luke ii. 32: * A light to lighten the Gentiles 
(ἔθνος) and the glory of thy people (λαός) Israel.”! 
We need scarcely point out that the Jesus of the fourth 
Gospel is no longer of the race of David, but the Son of 
God. The expectation of the Jews that the Messiah 
should be of the seed of David is entirely set aside, and 
the genealogies of the first and third Synoptics tracing 
his descent are not only ignored, but the whole idea 
absolutely excluded. 

Throughout the fourth Gospel a number of mistakes 
of various kinds occur which clearly point to the fact 
that the author was neither a Palestinian nor a Jew 
at all. For instance, the writer calls Annas the high 
priest, although at the same time Caiaphas is repre- 
sented as also holding that office? The expression. 
which he uses is: ‘Caiaphas being the high priest 
that year” (ἀρχιερεὺς ὧν Tod ἐνιαυτοῦ ἐκείνου). This 
statement, made more than once, would indicate the 
belief that the office was merely annual, which is erro- 
neous. Josephus states with regard to Caiaphas, that 
he was high priest for ten years from A.D. 25—36.5 
Ewald and others argue that the expression “that 


used in the fourth Gospel, once in xi. 50, where ἔθνος occurs in the same 
verse, and again in xviii. 14, where the same words of Caiaphas, xi. 50, 
are quoted. It is found in viii. 2, but that episode does not belong to the 
fourth Gospel, but is taken from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. 

1 Of. Matt. iv. 15; vi. 32; x. 5; Mark, x. 42; xiii. 10; Luke xxi. 10, 
24, 25, &e., Ke. ; Rom. ii. 14; iii, 29; ix. 24; Gal. ii. 2,8, 9, 12, &., &e. 
Ewald himself points out that the saying of Caiaphas is the purest 
Greek, and this is another proof that it could not proceed from the 
son of Zebedee. It could still less be, as it stands, an original speech in 
Greek of the high priest to the Jewish Council, a point which does not 
require remark. Of. Ewald, Die Joh. Schr., i. p. 325, anm. 1. 

* John xi. 49, 51; xyiii. 13, 16, 19, 22, 24. 

3 Antiq. xviii. 2, § 2; 4,§ 3; cf. Matt. xxvi. 3, 57. 

VOL, I. EE 


418 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


year” refers to the year in which the death of Jesus, 
so memorable to the writer, took place, and that it does 
not exclude the possibility of his having been high 
priest for successive years also. This explanation, how- 
ever, 18 quite arbitrary and insufficient, and this is 
shown by the additional error in representing Annas as 
also high priest at the same time. The Synoptics know 
nothing of the preliminary examination before Annas, 
and the reason given by the writer of the fourth Gospel 
why the soldiers first took Jesus to Annas: “for he was 
father-in-law to Caiaphas, who was high priest that same 
year,’? is absurd. The assertion is a clear mistake, and 
it probably originated in a stranger, writing of facts and 
institutions with which he was not well acquainted, 
being misled by an error equally committed by the 
author of the third Gospel and of the Acts of the 
Apostles. In Luke ii. 2, the word of God is said to 
come to John the Baptist: “in the high priesthood of 
Annas and Caiaphas” (ἐπὶ ἀρχιερέως Ἄννα καὶ Καϊάφα), 
and again, in Acts iv. 6, Annas is spoken of as the high 
priest when Peter and John healed the lame man at the 
gate of the Temple which was called “ Beautiful,” and 
Caiaphas is mentioned immediately after: ‘‘and Annas 
the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, 
and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest.” 
Such statements, erroneous in themselves and not under- 
stood by the author of the fourth Gospel, may have led 
to the confusion in the narrative, Annas had previously 
been high priest, as we know from Josephus,*? but nothing 
is more certain than the fact that the title was not con- 
tinued after the office was resigned; and Ishmael, Eleazar, 


1 Die Joh. Schr., i. p. 326, anm.1; Liicke, Comment. Ey. Joh., ii. p. 484. 
2 John xviii. 13 3 Antiq., xyil. 2, § 1. 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARAOTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 419 


and Simon, who succeeded Annas. and separated his 
term of office from that of Caiaphas, did not subse- 
quently bear the title. The narrative is a mistake, and 
such an error could not have been committed by a native 
of Palestine,’ and much less bya an aequaintance of the 
high priest.? ᾿ 

The author says, in relating the case of restoration of 
sight to a blind man, that Jesus desired him: (ix. 7) 
“Go wash in the pool of Siloam,” and adds: “ which is 
by interpretation: Sent.” This is a distinct error arising 
out of ignorance of the real signification of the name of 
the Pool, which means a spring, a fountain, a flow of 
water. ' The writer evidently wishes to give ἃ pro- 
phetical character’ to the name, and thus increase the 
importance of the miracle. The explanation is a mere 
conceit in any case, and a foreigner with a slight know- 
ledge of the language is misled by the superficial 
analogy of sound.*. Liicke refuses to be persuaded that 
the parenthesis is by John at all, and evades the difficulty 
by conjecturing that it is a ema of some ancient 
allegorical interpreter.* , 

There are also several geographical errors committed 
which denote a foreigner. In i. 28, the writer speaks of 
a “ Bethany beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.” 
The substitution of “Bethabara,” mentioned by Origen, 
which has erroneously crept into the vulgar text, is of 
course repudiated. by all critics, “ Bethany” standing in 


1 Baur, Unters. kan. Evy., p. 332 f.; Scholten, Das Ey. Johannes, 
p- 300 ff.; Bretschneider, Probabilia, p. 93 f.; Davidson, Int. N. T., ii. 
p. 429 f.; Nicolas, Et. sur la Bible, N. T., p. 198 f. ; Hilgenfeld, Die Evan- 
gelien, p. 297, anm, 1; Keim, Jesu vy. Nazara, iii. p. 321 ff.; Volkmar, 
Die Evangelien, p. 586 f.; Schenkel, Das Charakt. Jesu, p. 355. 

2 John xviii. 15. 

3 Bretschneider, Probabilia, p. 93; Davidson, Int. N. Τ᾿, ii. p. 428. 

4 Comment. Ey. Joh., ii. p, 381. 

REZ 


429 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


all the older codices. The alteration was evidently pro- 
posed to obviate the difficulty that there did not exist any 
Bethany beyond Jordan in Perea. The place could not 
be the Bethany near Jerusalem, and it is scarcely possible 
that there could have been a second village of the name ; 
no trace of it existed even in Origen’s time, and it is 
utterly unknown now.’ Again, in iii. 23, the writer 
says that “John was baptizing in Ainon, near to Salim, 
because there was much water there.” This Ainon near 
to Salim was in Judeea, as is clearly stated in the 
previous verse. ‘The place, however, was quite unknown 
even in the third century, and the nearest locality which 
could be indicated as possible was in the north of 
Samaria, and, therefore, differing from the statements in 
iii. 22, iv. 3. Aunon, however, signifies “ springs,” and 
the question arises whether the writer of the fourth 
Gospel, not knowing the real meaning of the word, did 
not simply mistake it for the name of a place? In any 
case it is a geographical error into which the author of 
the fourth Gospel, had he been the Apostle John, could 
not have fallen. The account of the miracle of the pool of 
Bethesda is a remarkable one for many reasons. The words 
which most pointedly relate the miraculous phenomena 
characterizing the pool do not appear in the oldest MSS., 
and are consequently rejected. In the following extract 
we put them in italics: v. 3.—“ In these (five porches) 

1 Bretschneider, Probabilia, p. 95 f.; Baur, Unters. kan. Evv., p. 9391 :- 
Davidson, Int. N. T., ii. p. 427; Schenkel, Das Charakt. Jesu, p. 354; 
cf. Ewald, Gesch. V. Isr., p. 62, anm. 1; Liicke, Comm. Ey. Joh., i. 
p. 391 ff.; Bleek, Einl. N. T., p. 210 f.; Beitrage, p. 256 f. 

2 Scholten, Das Ey. Joh., p. 409 f. 

3 Scholten, Das Ev. Joh., p. 409 f.; Bretschneider, Probabilia, p. 96 f. ; 
Nicolas, Et. sur la Bible, N. T., p. 199 f.; Schenkel, Das Charakt. Jesu, p. 


355 ; cf. Ewald, Gesch. Y. Isr., vy. p. 262, anm. 2 ; Liicke, Comm. Ey. Joh., 
1. p. 553 ff. 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 421 


lay a multitude of the sick, halt, withered, waiting for 
the moving of the water. 4. For an angel went down 
at certain seasons into the pool and troubled the water : 
he, therefore, who first went in after the troubling of the 
water was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.” 
We must believe, however, that this passage did origin- 
ally belong to the text, and has, from an early period, 
been omitted from MSS. on account of the difficulty it 
presents ; and one of the reasons which points to this is 
the fact that verse 7, which is not questioned and has the 
authority of all codices, absolutely implies the existence 
of the previous words, without which it has no sense. 
Now, not only is the pool of Bethesda totally unknown 
at the present day, but although possessed of such 
miraculous properties, it was unknown even to Josephus, 
or any other writer of that time. It is impossible, were 
the narrative genuine, that the phenomena could have 
been unknown and unmentioned by the Jewish historian,' 
and there is here evidently neither the narrative of an 
Apostle nor of an eye-witness. 

Another very significant mistake occurs in the account 
of the conversation with the Samaritan woman, which is 
said to have taken place (iv. 5) near “a city of Samaria 
which is called Sychar.” It is admitted that there was 
no such place—and apologetic ingenuity is severely 
taxed to explain the difficulty. The common conjecture 
has been that the town of Sichem is intended, but this 
is rightly rejected by Delitzsch,? and Ewald.* Credner,‘ 


1 Cf. Liicke, Comm. Ey, Joh., ii. p. 16 ff.; Hwald, Die Joh. Schr., i. 
p. 200 ff. 

3. Talmudische Stud. Zeitschr. gesammt. luth. Theo]. τι. Kirche, 1856. 
p. 240 ff. 

3. Die Joh. Schr., i. p. 181, anm. 1; Gesch. V. Isr., v. p. 348, anm. 1; 
Jahrb. bibl. Wiss., viii. p. 255 f. 

4 Einl, N. T., i, p. 264. 


422 SUPERNATURAL. RELIGION. 


not unsupported by others, and borne out in particular 
by the theory of Ewald, conjectures that Sychar is a 
corruption of Sichem, introduced into the Gospel by a 
Greek secretary to whom this part of the Gospel was 
dictated, and who mistook the Apostle’s pronunciation 
of the final syllable. We constantly meet with this 
elastic explanation of difficulties in the Gospel, but its 
mere enunciation displays at once the reality of the 
difficulties and the imaginary nature of the explanation. 
Hengstenberg adopts the view, and presses it with pious 
earnestness, that the term is a mere nickname for the 
city of Sichem, and that, by so slight a change in the 
pronunciation, the Apostle called the place a city of Lies 
(7728 a lie), a play upon words which he does not consider 
unworthy.’ The only support which this latter theory 
can secure from internal evidence is to be derived from 
the fact that the whole discourse with the woman is 
evidently ideal, and as Hengstenberg himself conjec- 
tures further on,? the five husbands of the woman 
are typical of the Gods of the five nations with which 
the King of Assyria peopled Samaria, II. Kings, xvii. 
24—41, and which they worshipped instead of the God 
of Israel, and the actual God of the Samaritans was not 
recognized as the true God by the Jews, nor their worship 
of him on Mount Gerizim held to be valid, therefore, he 
considers, under the name of the City of Sychar, their 
whole religion, past and present, was denounced as a lie, 
There can be little doubt that the episode is allegorical, 
but such a defence of the geographical error, the 
reality of which is everywhere felt, whilst it is 
quite insufficient on the one hand, effectually destroys 
the historical character of the Gospel on the other. 


1 Das Ey. des heil. Joh., 1867, i. p. 244. 2 Jb., 1. p. 262 f. 


. 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 423 


The inferences from all of the foregoing examples are 
strengthened by the fact that, in the quotations from 
the Old Testament, the fourth Gospel in the main 
follows the Septuagint version, or shows its influence, 
and nowhere can be shown directly to translate from 
the Hebrew. 

These instances might be multiplied, but we must 
proceed to examine more closely the indications given in 
the Gospel itself as to the identity of its author. We 
need not point out that the writer nowhere clearly states 
who he is, nor mentions his name, but expressions are 
frequently used which evidently show the desire that a 
particular person should be understood. He generally 
calls himself “ the other disciple,” or ‘ the disciple whom 
Jesus loved.”? It is universally admitted that he repre- 
sents himself as having previously been a disciple of 
John the Baptist (i. 35 ff.),2 and also that he is “ the 
other disciple” who was acquainted with the high 
priest (xviii. 15, 16), if not an actual relative as Ewald 
and others assert.4 The assumption that the disciple 
thus indicated is John, rests principally on the fact that 
whilst the author mentions the other Apostles, he seems 
studiously to avoid directly naming John, and also that 
he only once distinguishes John the Baptist by the 


Li Jolt. 30: ἢ Ril, cos Elk 26, ,9 Ὁ Ὁ ΣΧ, τῶν 

2 Oredner, Hinl. N. T., i. p. 209; Ewald, Gesch. V. Isr., v. p. 323 ; 
Die Joh. Schr., i. p. 141 f.; De Wette, Kinl, N. T., p. 229; Thiersch, Die 
Kirche im ap. Zeit., p. 265 f.; Michaelis, Einl. N. T., ii. p. 1127; 
Scholten, Das Ey. Joh., p. 378; Liicke, Comm. Ey. Joh., i. p. 443 f.; 
Tlengstenberg, Das By. ἃ. heil. Joh., i. p. 106 f. 

3 Ewald, Die Joh. Schr., i. p. 400; Liicke, Comm. Ey. Joh., ii. 
p- 703 ἢ; Hengstenberg, Das Ey. heil. Joh., iii. p. 196 f.; Bleek, inl. 
Nit... 1324, 

4 Ewald, Die Joh. Schr., i. p. 400; Bleek, Einl. N. T., p. 151; Ewald 
considers the relationship to have been on the mother’s side. Hengsten- 
herg contradicts that strange assumption, Das Ey. heil. Joh. iii. p. 196. 


424 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


appellation ὁ βαπτιστής, whilst he carefully distinguishes 
the two disciples of the name of Judas, and always 
speaks of the Apostle Peter as “Simon Peter,” or 
“Peter,” but rarely as “Simon” only.’ Without 
pausing to consider the slightness of this evidence, it 
is obvious that, supposing the disciple indicated to be 
John the son of Zebedee, the fourth Gospel gives a 
representation of him quite different from the Synoptics 
and other writings. In the fourth Gospel (i. 35 ff.) the 
calling of the Apostle is described in a peculiar manner. 
John (the Baptist) is standing with two of his disciples, 
and points out Jesus to them as “the Lamb of God,” 
whereupon the two disciples follow Jesus, and, finding 
out where he lives, abide with him that day and sub- 
sequently attach themselves to his person. In verse 40 
it is stated: “One of the two which heard John speak, 
and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother.” 
We are left to imagine who was the other, and the 
answer of critics is: John. Now, the “calling” of John 
is related in a totally different manner in the Synoptics— 
Jesus, walking by the Sea of Galilee, sees “two brethren, 
Simon called Peter, and Andrew, his brother, casting a 
net into the sea, for they were fishers, and he saith unto 
them: Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men. 
‘And they straightway left their nets and followed him. 
And when he had gone on from thence, he saw other two 
brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his 
brother, in the ship with Zebedee their father, mending 
their nets; and he called them. And they immediately 
left the ship and their father and followed him.”? These 


1 Credner, Einl. N. T., i. p. 209 f.; De Wette, Einl. N. T., p. 230; 
Bleek, Beitrige, p. 178; Einl. N. T., p. 150 f. 
2 Matt. iv. 18—22; Mark i, 16—20. 


—_— wae 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL, 425 


accounts are in complete contradiction to each other, and 
both cannot be true. We see from the first introduction 
of “the other disciple” on the scene in the fourth 
Gospel the evident design to give him the precedence 
before Peter and the rest: of the Apostles. We have above 
given the account of the first two Synoptics of the calling 
of Peter. He is the first of the disciples who is selected, 
and he is directly invited by Jesus to follow him and 
become, with his brother Andrew, “fishers of men.” 
James and John are not called till later in the day, and 
without the record of any special address. In the third 
Gospel the calling of Peter is introduced with still more 
important details. Jesus enters the boat of Simon and 
bids him push out into the Lake and let down his net, and 
the miraculous draught of fishes is taken: “ When Simon 
Peter saw it, he fell down. at Jesus’ knees, saying: 
Depart from me, for 1 am a sinful man, Ὁ Lord. For 
he was astonished, and all that were with him, at the 
draught of fishes which they had taken.” The calling of 
the sons of Zebedee becomes even less important here, 
for the account simply continues: ‘‘ And so was also 
James and John, the sons of Zebedee, who were 
partners with Simon.” Jesus then addresses his invita- 
tion to Simon, and the account concludes: “ And when 
they had brought their boats to land, they forsook all, 
and followed him.”* In the fourth Gospel the calling 
of the two disciples of John is first narrated, as we have 
seen and the first call of Peter is from his brother 
Andrew, and not from Jesus himself. “He (Andrew) 
first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him : 
We have found the Messias (which is, being interpreted, 
Christ), and he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked on 
. ? Luke y. 1—11, 


428. SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


him and said: Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas; 
thou shalt be called Cephas (which is by interpretation, 
Peter).”? This explanation of the manner in which the 
cognomen Peter is given, we need not point out, is 
likewise contradictory to the Synoptics, and betrays the 
same purpose of suppressing the prominence of Peter. 
The fourth Gospel states that “the other disciple,” 
who is declared to be John, the author of the Gospel, 
was known to the high priest, another trait amongst 
many others elevating him above the son of Zebedee as 
he is depicted elsewhere in the New Testament. The 
account which the fourth Gospel gives of the trial of 
Jesus is in very many important particulars at variance 
with that of the Synoptics. We need only mention 
here the point that the latter know nothing of the pre- 
liminary examination by Annas. We shall not discuss 
the question as to where the denial of Peter is repre- 
sented as taking place in the fourth Gospel, but may 
merely say that no other disciple but Peter is mentioned 
in the Synoptics as having followed Jesus; and Peter 
enters without difficulty into the high priest’s palace. 
In the fourth Gospel, Peter is made to wait without at 
the door until John, who is a friend of the high priest 
and freely enters, obtains permission for Peter to go 
in, another instance of the precedence which is sys- 
tematically given to John. The Synoptics do not in 
this particular case give any support to the state- 


1 The author apparently considered that Jonas and John were the same 
name, another indication of a foreigner. Although some of the oldest 
Codices read John here and in xxi. 15—17, there is great authority for 
the reading Jona, which is considered by a majority of critics the 
original. 

3 John i. 41—42. 

3 Matt. xxyi. 58, 69; Mark xiy. 54, 56; Luke xxii. 54 ff. 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 427 


ment in the fourth Gospel, and certainly in nothing 
that is said of John do they elsewhere render his 
acquaintance with the high priest in the least’ degree 
probable. It is, on the contrary, improbable in the 
extreme that the young fisherman of Galilee, who shows 
very little enlightenment in the anecdotes told of him in 
the Synoptics, and who is described as an “ unlettered 
and ignorant” man in the Acts of the Apostles, could 
have any acquaintance with the high priest. Ewald 
who, on the strength of the word γνωστός, at once 
elevates him into a relation of the high. priest, sees in 
the statement of Polycrates that late in life he wore the 
priestly πέταλον, a confirmation of the supposition that 
he was of the high priest’s race and family.2 The 
evident Judaistic tendency, however, which made John 
wear the priestly mitre may distinguish him as author 
of the Apocalypse, but it is fatal to the theory which 
makes him author of the fourth Gospel, in which there 
is so complete a severance from Judaism. 

A much more important point, however, is the desig- 
nation of the author of the fourth Gospel, who is identi- 
fied with the Apostle John, as “ the disciple whom Jesus 
loved.” It is scarcely too much to say, that this sugges- 
tive appellation alone has done more than any arguments 
to ensure the recognition of the work, and to overcome 
the doubts as to its authenticity. Religious sentimen- 
tality, evoked by the influence of this tender epithet, 
has been blind to historical incongruities, and has been 
willing to accept with little question from the “ beloved 
disciple” a portrait of Jesus totally unlike that of the 
Synoptics, and to elevate the dogmatic mysticism and 


1 John xviii. 15, 
2 Die Joh. Schr., i. p. 400, anm, 1; Bleek, Hinl. Ν, T., p. 151. 


428 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


artificial discourses of the one over the sublime morality 
and simple eloquence of the other. It is impossible to 
reflect seriously upon this representation of the relations 
between one of the disciples and Jesus without the con- 
viction that every record of the life of the great Teacher 
must have borne distinct traces of the preference, and 
that the disciple so honoured must have attracted the 
notice of every early writer acquainted with the facts. 
If we seek for any evidence, however, that John was 
distinguished with such special affection—that he lay on 
the breast of Jesus at supper—that even the Apostle 
Peter recognised his superior intimacy and influence '— 
and that he received at the foot of the cross the care of 
his mother from the dying Jesus?—we seek in vain. 
The Synoptic Gospels, which minutely record the details 
of the last supper and of the crucifixion, so far from 
mentioning any such circumstances or such distinction 
of John, do not even mention his name, and Peter 
everywhere has precedence before the sons of Zebedee. 
Almost the only occasions upon which any prominence 
is given to them are episodes in which they incur the 
Master’s displeasure, and the cognomen of “Sons of 
thunder” has certainly no suggestion in it of special 
affection, nor of personal qualities hkely to attract the 
great Teacher. The selfish ambition of the brothers who 
desire to sit on thrones on his right and on his left, and 
the intolerant temper which would have called down fire 
from heaven to consume a Samaritan village, much 
rather contradict than support the representation of the 
fourth Gospel. Upon one occasion, indeed, Jesus in 
rebuking them, adds: “Ye know not what manner of 


1 John xiii. 28—26. ; 2 Tb, xix. 25—27, 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 429 


spirit ye are of.”! It is perfectly undeniable that John 
nowhere has any such position accorded to him in the 
Synoptics as this designation in the fourth Gospel 
implies. In the lists of the disciples he is always put in 
the fourth place,? and in the first two Gospels his only 
distinguishing designation is that of “the brother of 
James,” or one of the sons of Zebedee. The Apostle 
Peter in all of the Synoptics is the leader of the disciples. 
He it is who alone is represented as the mouth-piece of 
the twelve or as holding conversation with Jesus; and 
the only occasions on which the sons of Zebedee address 
Jesus are those to which we have referred, upon which 
his displeasure was incurred. The angel who appears to 
the women after the resurrection desires them to tell his 
disciples “and Peter” that Jesus will meet them in 
Galilee,* but there is no message for any “ disciple whom 
he loved.” If Peter, James, and John accompany the 
Master to the mount of transfiguration and are witnesses 
of his agony in the garden, regarding which, however, 
the fourth Gospel is totally silent, the two brethren 
remain in the back ground, and Peter alone acts a promi- 
nent part. If we turn to the Epistles of Paul, we do not 
find a single trace of acquaintance with the fact that 
Jesus honoured John with any special affection, and the 
opportunity of referring to such a distinction was not 
wanting when he writes to the Galatians of his visit to 
the “ Pillar” Apostles in Jerusalem. Here again, how- 


1 Luke ix. 55. These words are omitted from some of the oldest MSS., 
but they are in Cod. D (Bezze) and many other very important texts, as 
well as in some of the oldest versions, besides being quoted by the 
Fathers. ‘They were probably omitted after the claim of John to be the 
‘* beloved disciple ” became admitted. 

2 Matt. x. 2—4 ; Mark, iii, 16—19; Luke yi. 14—16. 

3 Mark xvi. 7. 


430 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


ever, we find no prominence given to John, but the 
contrary, his name still being mentioned last and without 
any special comment. In none of the Pauline, or other 
Epistles, is there any allusion, however distant, to any 
disciple whom Jesus specially loved. The Apocalypse, 
which, if any book of the New Testament can be traced 
to him, must be ascribed te the Apostle John; makes no 
claim whatever to such a distinction. In none of the 
Apocryphal Gospels is there the slightest indication of 
knowledge of the fact, and if we come to the Fathers 
even, it is a striking circumstance that there is not a 
trace of it in any early work, and not the most remote 
indication of any independent tradition that Jesus dis- 
tinguished John or any other individual disciple with 
peculiar friendship. ‘The Roman Clement, in referring to 
the example of the Apostles, only mentions Peter and 
Paul. Polycarp, who is described as a disciple of the 
Apostle John, knows nothing of his having been espe- 
cially loved by Jesus. Pseudo-Ignatius does not refer to 
him at all in the Syriac Epistles, or in either version of 
the seven Epistles? Papias, in describing his interest 
in hearing what the Apostles said, gives John no promi- 
nence: “1 enquired minutely after the words of the 
Presbyters: What Andrew, or. what Peter said, or 
what Philip or what Thomas or James, or what John or 
Matthew, or what any other of the disciples of the Lord, 
and what Aristion and the Presbyter John, the disciples 
of the Lord, say,”? &e. 


1 Ad Corinth., νυ. 

? Indeed in the universally repudiated Epistles, beyond the fact that 
two are addressed to John, in which he is not called ‘‘ the disciple whom 
Jesus loved,” the only mention of him is the statement, ‘«Jehn was 
banished to Patmos.” Ad Tars., iii. 

Eusebius, Ἢ. E., iii. 39. 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 431 


As a fact, it is undenied and undeniable that the 
representation of John, or of any other disciple, as 
specially beloved by Jesus, is limited solely and entirely 
to the fourth Gospel, and that there is not even a trace 
of independent tradition to support the claim, whilst on 
the other hand the total silence of the earlier Gospels 
and of the other New Testament writings on the point, 
and indeed their data of a positive and contradictory 
character, oppose rather than support the correctness of 
the later and mere personal assertion. Those who 
abandon sober criticism, and indulge in mere sentimental 
rhapsodies on the impossibility of the author of the 
fourth Gospel being any other than “the disciple whom 
Jesus loved,” strangely ignore the fact that we have no 
reason whatever, except the assurance of the author 
himself, to believe that Jesus specially loved any disciple, 
and much less John the Son of Zebedee. Indeed, the 
statements of the fourth Gospel itself on the subject are 
so indirect and intentionally vague that it is not abso- 
lutely clear what disciple is indicated as “the beloved,” 
and it has even been maintained that, not John the son 
οὗ Zebedee, but Andrew the brother of Simon Peter was 
“the disciple whom Jesus loved,” and consequently the 
supposed author of the fourth Gospel.’ 

We have hitherto refrained from referring to one of 
the most singular features of the fourth Gospel, the chapter 
xxi., Which is by many cited as the most ancient testi- 
mony for the authenticity of the work, and which 
requires particular consideration. It is obvious that the 
Gospel is brought to a conclusion by verses 30, 31 of 
chapter xx., and critics are universally agreed at least 
that, whoever may be its author, chapter xxi. is a supple- 

1 Liitzelberger, Die kirchl. Tradition tiber ἃ. Apost. Joh., p. 199 ff. 


432 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


ment only added after an interval. By whom was it 
written ?¢ As may be supposed, critics have given very 
different replies to this important question. Many 
affirm, and with much probability, that chapter xxi. 
was subsequently added to the Gospel by the author 
himself! A few, however, exclude the last two verses, 
which they consider to have been added by another 
hand.?- A much larger number assert that the whole 
chapter is an ancient appendix to the Gospel by a writer 
who was not the author of the Gospel. <A few likewise 
reject the last two verses of the preceding chapter.* In 
this supplement (v. 20) “ the disciple whom Jesus loved, 
who also leaned on his breast at the supper and said: 
Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?” is (v. 24) 
identified with the author of the Gospel. 


1 Credner, Einl. N. T., i. p. 222 f.; Hilgenfeld, Die Evangelien, ‘p. 
317 ff.; Zeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1868, p. 435 ff.; Weitzel, Stud. ἃ. Krit., 
1849, p. 596 ff. ; Schleiermacher, Hinl. N. T., p. 331; J. P. Lange, Gesch. 
chr. Kirche, 1854, 1. p. 421; Luthardt, Das Joh. Evang., i. p. 17 f., 11. 
p. 458 f.; Wegscheider, Einl. Ey. Joh., p. 173; Michaelis, Einl. N. T., u. 
p- 1170 f.; Westcott, Int. to the Study of the Gospels, 1872, p. 254; 
Renan, Vie de Jésus, xiii™’ éd., p. lxxiii. ; Hengstenberg, Das Ey. 4. heil. 
Joh., p. 322 ff.; Zholuck, Glaubw. ey. Gesch., p.274; Guericke, Beitrage, 
p-68; Hug, Einl. N. T., ii. p. 250 ff. 

2 Credner, Einl. N. T., i. p. 232; J. P. Lange, Gesch. d- Kirche, ii. p. 
418; Tholuck, Glaubw. ey. Gesch., p. 274; Guericke, Beitrage, p. 68; 
Hug. Einl. N. T. ii. p. 250 ff. 

3 Bleek, Eml. N. T., p. 219 f.; Bertholdt, Einl, A. u. N. T., iii. p. 
1326 ff.; Clericus, Ad Hammondi in Ey. Joh. annott.; Davidson, Int. 
N. T., ii. pp. 339, 426 f.; Ewald, Jahrb. bibl. Wiss., iii., 1850—51, 
p. 171 f.; x. 1859—60, p. 87; Die Joh. Schr., i. p. 54 ff.; Grotius, Annot. 
ad Joh., xx. 30, xxi. 24; Keim, Jesu ν, Nazara, i. p. 157 f.; Liicke, 
Comm. Ey. Joh., ii. p. 826 ff. ; Neudecker, Einl. N. T., p. 334 f., anm. 4; 
Paulus, Repert. ii. p. 327; Réville, Rey. de Théol., 1854, ix. p. 345; Schott, 
Comment. de origine et indole cap. ult. Ey. Joh., 1825; Isagoge, § 43. 
p- 155 ; Schenkel, Das Charakt. Jesu, p. 32; Scholten, Das Ey. Johan., pp. 
4ff., 57 ff. ; Spdth, Zeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1868, p. 192 ff.; Semler, Hist. 
ἘΠῚ]. Baumgarten’s Unters. Theol. Streitigk., p. 62; Volkmar, Die Evyan- 
gelien, p. 641 f.; Weisse, Die eyang. Gesch., i. p. 99; Weizsdcker, Unters. 
eyang. Gesch., p- 301 f. * Baur, Unters. kan. Evy., p. 236 ff. 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 433 


We may here state the theory ‘of Ewald with regard 
to the composition of the fourth Gospel, which is 
largely deduced from considerations connected with the 
last chapter, and which, although more audaciously 
minute in its positive and arbitrary statement of details 
than any other with which we are acquainted, introduces 
more or less the explanations generally given regarding 
the composition of chapter xxi. Out of all the indi- 
cations in the work, Ewald decides : 

“1. That the Gospel, completed at the end of chapter 
xx., was composed by the Apostle about the year 80, with 
the free help of friends, not to be immediately circulated 
throughout the world, but intended to remain limited to a 
narrow circle of friends until his death, and only then to 
be published as his legacy to the whole of Christendom. 
In this position it remained ten years, or even longer. 

2. As that preconceived opinion regarding the life 
or death of the Apostle (xxi. 23) had perniciously 
spread itself throughout the whole of Christendom, the 
Apostle himself decided even before his death to coun- 
teract it in the right way by giving a correct statement of 
the circumstances. The same friends, therefore, assisted 
him to design the very important supplement, chapter xxi, 
and this could still be very easily added, as the book was 
not yet published. His friends proceeded, nevertheless, 
somewhat more freely, in its composition, than previously 
in writing the book itself, and allowed their own 
hand more clearly to gleam through, although here, 
as in the rest of the work, they conformed to the will 
of the Apostle, and did not, even in the supplement, 
openly declare his name as the author. As the supple- 
ment, however, was to form a closely connected part of 


the whole work, they gave at its end (verses 24 ἢ), as it 
VOL. II, ¥F 


434 . SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


now seemed to them“ suitable, a new conclusion to the 
augmented work. 

3. As the Apostle himself desired that the precon- 
ceived opinion regarding him, which had been spread 
abroad to the prejudice of Christendom, should be con- 
tradicted as soon as possible, and even before his death, 
he now so far departed from his earlier wish, that he 
permitted the circulation of his Gospel before his death. 
We can accept this with all certainty, and have therein 
a trustworthy testimony regarding the whole original 
history of our book. 

4, When the Gospel was thus published, it for the first 
time was gradually named after our Apostle, even in its 
external superscription : a nomination which had then 
become all the more necessary and durable for the 
purpose of distinction, as it was united in one whole 
with the other Gospels. The world, however, has at all 
times known it only under this wholly right title, and 
could in no way otherwise know it and otherwise name it.” 

In addressing ourselves to each of these points in 
detail, we shall be able to discuss the principal questions 
connected with the fourth Gospel. 

The theory of Ewald, that the fourth Gospel was 
written down with the assistance of friends in- Ephesus, 
has been imagined solely to conciliate certain phenomena 
presented throughout the Gospel, and notably in the last 
chapter, with the foregone conclusion that it was written 
by the Apostle John. It is apparent that there is not a 
single word in the work itself explaining such a mode of 
composition, and that the hypothesis proceeds purely 
from the ingenious imagination of the critic. The nature 
of the language in which the Gospel is composed, the 

1 Die Joh, Schr., i. p. ὅθ ἢ, ; cf. Jahrb. bibl. Wiss., iii. p. 171 ff. 





AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 435 


manner in which the writer is indirectly indicated in the 
third person, and even in the body of the work (xix. 35) 
reference is made to the testimony of a third person, 
combined with the similarity of the style of the supple- 
mentary chapter, which is an obvious addition intended, 
however, to be understood as written by a different 
hand, have rendered these conjectures necessary to 
reconcile such obvious incongruities with the ascription 
of the work to the Apostle. The substantial identity of 
the style and vocabulary of chapter xxi, with the rest of 
the Gospel is asserted by a multitude of the most com- 
petent critics. Ewald, whilst he recognizes the great 
similarity, maintains at the same time a real dissimi- 
larity, for which he accounts in the manner just quoted. 
The language, Ewald admits, agrees fully in many rare 
nuances with that of the rest of the Gospel, but he does 
not take the trouble to prove the decided dissimilarities 
which, he asserts, likewise exist. A less difference than 
that which he finds might, he thinks, be explained by 
the interval which had elapsed between the writing of 
the work and of the supplement, but “the wonderful 
similarity, in the midst of even greater dissimilarity, of 
the whole tone and particularly of the style of the 
composition is not thereby accounted for. This, 
therefore, leads us,” he continues, “to the opinion : The 
Apostle made use, for writing down his words, of the 
hand and even of the skill of a trusted friend who later 
on his own authority (fiir sich allein) wrote the sup- 
plement. The great similarity, as well as dissimilarity, 
of the style of both parts in this way becomes intel- 
ligible: the trusted friend (probably a Presbyter in 
Ephesus) adopted much of the language and mode of 
expression of the youthful old Apostle, without, how- 


FF 2 


436 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


ever, where he wrote more in his own person, being 
carefully solicitous of imitating them. But even through 
this contrast, and the definite declaration in v. 24, the 
Apostolical origin of the book itself becomes all the more 
clearly apparent ; and thus the supplement proves from 
the most diverse sides how certainly this Gospel was 
written by the trusted disciple.”! Elsewhere, Ewald 
more clearly explains the share in the work which he 
assigns to the Apostle’s disciple: ‘The proposition that 
this Apostle composed in a unique way our likewise 
unique Gospel is to be understood only with that 
important limitation upon which I always laid so 
much stress: for John himself did not compose this 
work quite so directly as Paul did most of his 
Epistles, but the young friend who wrote it down from 
his lips, and who, in the later appendix, chapter xxi, 
comes forward in the most open way without desiring 
in the slightest to conceal his separate identity, does his 
work at other times somewhat freely, in that he never 
introduces the narrator speaking of himself and his 
participation in the events with ‘I’ or ‘we,’ but only 
indirectly indicates his presence at such events, and, 
towards the end, in preference refers to him, from his 
altogether peculiar relation to Christ, as ‘the disciple 
whom the Lord loved,’ so that, in one passage, he even 
speaks of him, in regard to an important historical testi- 
mony (xix. 35), as of a third person.” Ewald then main- 
tains that the agreement between the Gospel and the 
Epistles, and more especially the first, which he affirms, 
without vouchsafing a word of evidence, to have been 
written down by a different hand, proves that we have 
substantially only the Apostle’s very peculiar com- 
1 Jahrb. bibl. Wiss., iii, 1850—1, p. 173. 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 437 


position, and that his friend as much as possible gave 
his own words.! 

It is obvious from this elaborate explanation, which we 
need scarcely say is full of mere assumptions, that, in 
order to connect the Apostle John with the Gospel, 
Ewald is obliged to assign him a very peculiar position 
in regard to it: he recognizes that some of the charac- 
teristics of the work exclude the supposition that the 
Apostle could himself have written the Gospel, so he 
represents him as dictating it, and his Secretary as taking 
considerable liberties with the composition as he writes it 
down, and even as introducing references of his own ; as, 
for instance, in the passage to which he refers, where, in 
regard to the statement that at the Crucifixion a soldier 
pierced the side of the already dead Jesus and that forth- 
with there came out blood and water (xix. 35), it is said : 
* And he that saw it hath borne witness, and his witness 
is true ; and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye may 
believe.” ? It is perfectly clear that the writer refers to 
the testimony of another person*—the friend who is 
writing down the narrative, says Herr Ewald, refers to 
the Apostle who is actually dictating it. Again, in the 
last chapter, as elsewhere throughout the work, “ the 
disciple whom Jesus loved,” who is the author, is spoken 

1 Jahrb. bibl. Wiss., x. 1859—60, p. 87 f. 

2 We do not go into any discussion on the use of the word ἐκεῖνος. 
We believe that the reference is distinctly to another, but even if taken to 
be to himself in the third person, the passage is not less extraordinary, 
and the argument holds. 

3 Weisse, Die ev. Gesch., i. p. 101 ff., ii. p. 327 ff. ; Léitzelberger, Die 
kirchl, Trad. Ap. Joh., p. 205 ff. ; Késtlin, Theol. Jahrb., 1851, p. 207 ; 
Hilgenfeld, Die Evangelien, p. 341; Zeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1859, p. 414f., 
1861, p. 313 ff. ; Weizsdécker, Unters. ey. Gesch., p. 300; Davidson, Int. 
N. T., ii. p. 436 f.; Schenkel, Das Charakt. Jesu, 1864, p. 32; Tobler, Evan- 


gelienfrage, p. 33 ff.; Zeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1860, p. 177 f.; Scholten, 
Das Ey. Joh., p. 385, 


438 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


of in the third person, and also in verse 24: “ This is the 
disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these 
things” (καὶ γράψας ταῦτα). This, according to Ewald, 
is the same secretary, now writing in his own person. 
The similarity between this declaration and the appeal 
to the testimony of another person in xix. 35, is cer- 
tainly complete, and there can be no doubt that both 
proceed from the same pen; but beyond the assertion of 
Herr Ewald there is not the slightest evidence that a 
secretary wrote the Gospel from the dictation of another, 
and ventured to interrupt the narrative by such a refer- 
ence to testimony, which; upon the supposition that the 
Apostle John was known as. the actual author, is singu- 
larly out of place. If John wrote the Gospel, why should 
he appeal in utterly vague terms to his own testimony, 
and upon such a point, when the mere fact that he 
himself wrote the statement was the most direct testi- 
mony in itself? An author who composed a work which 
he desired to ascribe to a “ disciple whom Jesus loved” 
might have made such a reference as xix. 35, in his 
anxiety to support such an affirmation, without sup- 
posing that he had really compromised his design, and 
might have naturally added such a statement.as that in 
the last two verses, but nothing but the foregone conclu- 
sion that the Apostle John was the real author could have 
suggested such an explanation of these passages. It is 
throughout assumed by Ewald and others, that John 
wrote in the first instance, at least, specially for a natrow 
circle of friends, and the proof of this is considered to be 
the statement of the object with which it was written : 
“that ye may believe,” ὁ &c., a phrase, we may remark, 


1 John xx. 81; Ewald, Die Joh. Schr., i. p. 56 f.; Jahrb. bibl. Wiss., 
iii. p. 171; Bleek, Einl. N. T., p. 808, 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 489 


which is identical with that of the very verse (xix. 35) 
with which the secretary is supposed to have had so 
much to do. It is very remarkable, upon this hypothesis, 
that in xix. 35, it is considered necessary even for this 
narrow circle, who knew the Apostle so well, to make 
such an appeal, as well as to attach at its close (xxi, 24), 
for the benefit of the world in general as Ewald will have 
it, a certificate of the trustworthiness of the Gospel. 
Upon no hypothesis which supposes the Apostle John 
the author of the fourth Gospel is such an explanation 
eredible. That the Apostle himself could have written 
of himself the words in xix. 35 is impossible. After 
᾿ having stated so much that is much more surprising and 
contradictory to all experience without reference to any 
witness, it would indeed have been strange had he here 
appealed to himself as to a separate individual, and on 
the other hand it is quite inadmissible to assume that a 
friend to whom he is dictating should interrupt the 
narrative to introduce a passage so inappropriate to the 
work, and so unnecessary for any circle acquainted with 
the Apostolic author. If, as Ewald argues, the peculiari- 
_ ties of his style of composition were so well known that 
it was unnecessary for the writer more clearly to desig- 
nate himself either for the first readers, or for the 
Christian world, the passages we are discussing are all 
the more inappropriate. That any guarantee of the 
truth of the Gospel should have been thought desirable 
for readers who knew the work to be composed by the 
Apostle John, and who believed him to be “ the disciple 
whom Jesus loved,” is inconceivable, and that any anony- 
mous and quite indirect testimony to its genuineness 
should either have been considered necessary, or of any 
value, is still more incredible. It is impossible that 


440 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


nameless Presbyters of Ephesus could venture to accredit 
a Gospel written by the Apostle John ; and any intended 
attestation must have taken the simple and direct course 
of stating that the work had been composed by the 
Apostle. The peculiarities we are discussing seem to us 
explicable only upon the supposition that the writer of 
the Gospel desired that it should be understood to be 
written by a certain disciple whom Jesus loved, but did 
not choose distinctly to name him or directly to make 
such an affirmation. 

It is, we assert, impossible that an Apostle who com- 
posed a history of the life and teaching of Jesus could 
have failed to attach his name, naturally and simply, as — 
testimony of the trustworthiness of his statements, and 
of his fitness as an eye-witness to compose such a record. 
As the writer of the fourth Gospel does not state his 
name, Herr Ewald ascribes the omission to the “incom- 
parable modesty and delicacy of feeling” of the Apostle 
John. We must briefly examine the validity of this 
explanation. It is universally admitted, and by Ewald 
himself, that although the writer does not directly name 
himself, he very clearly indicates that he is “the other 
disciple”’ and “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” We 
must affirm that such a mode of indicating himself is 
incomparably less modest than the simple statement of 
his name, and it is indeed a glorification of himself 
beyond anything in the Apocalypse. But not only is 
the explanation thus discredited but, in comparing the 
details of the Gospel with those of the Synoptics, we 
find still more certainly how little modesty had to do 
with the suppression of his name. In the Synoptics a 
very marked precedence of the rest of the disciples is 
ascribed to the Apostle Peter; and the sons of Zebedee 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL, 441 


are represented in all of them as holding a subordinate 
place. This representation is confirmed by the Pauline 
Epistles and by tradition. In the fourth Gospel, a very 
different account is given, and the author studiously 
elevates the Apostle John,—that is to say, according to 
the theory that he is the writer of the Gospel, himself,— 
in every way above the Apostle Peter. Apart from the 
general pre-eminence claimed for himself in the very 
name of “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” we have seen 
that he deprives Peter in his own favour of the honour of 
being the first of the disciples who was called; he sup- 
presses the account of the circumstances under which 
that Apostle was named Peter, and gives another and 
trifling version of the incident, reporting elsewhere 
indeed in a very subdued and modified form, and with- 
out the commendation of the Master, the recognition of 
the divinity of Jesus, which in the first Gospel is the 
cause of his change of name.’ He is the intimate friend 
of the Master, and even Peter has to beg him to ask at the 
Supper who was the betrayer. He describes himself as 
the friend of the High Priest, and while Peter is excluded, 
he not only is able to enter into his palace, but he is 
the means of introducing Peter. The denial of Peter is 
given without mitigation, but his bitter repentance is not 
mentioned. He it is who is singled out by the dying 
Jesus and entrusted with the charge of his mother. He 
outruns Peter in their race to the Sepulchre, and in the 
final appearance of Jesus (xxi. 15) the more important 
position is assigned to the disciple whom Jesus loved. 
It is, therefore, absurd to speak of the incomparable 
modesty of the writer, who, if he does not give his name, 
not only clearly indicates himself, but throughout 
1 Matt. xvi. 13—19; cf, Mark yiii. 29; Luke ix. 20, 


442 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


assumes a pre-eminence which is not supported by the 
authority of the Synoptics and other writings, but is 
heard of alone from his own narrative. 

Ewald argues that chapter xxi. must have been 
written, and the Gospel as we have it, therefore, have 
been completed, before the death of the Apostle John. 
He considers the supplement to have been added spe- 
cially to contradict the report regarding John (xxi. 23). 
“The supplement must have been written whilst John 
still lived,” he asserts, “for only before his death was 
it worth while to contradict such a false hope; and if 
his death had actually taken place, the result itself would 
have already refuted so erroneous an interpretation of the 
words of Christ, and it would then have been much more 
appropriate to explain afresh the sense of the words ‘ till I 
come.’ Moreover, there is no reference here to the death 
as having already occurred, although a small addition 
to that effect in ver. 24 would have been so easy. If 
we were even to accept that John had long been dead 
when this was written, the whole rectification as it is ~ 
given would be utterly without sense.”' On the con- 
trary, we affirm that the whole history of the first two 
centuries renders it certain that the Apostle was already 
dead, and that the explanation was not a rectification of 
false hopes during his lifetime, but an explanation of the 
failure of expectations which had already taken place, 
and probably excited some scandal. We know how the 
early Church looked for the immediate coming of the 
glorified Christ, and how such hopes sustained persecuted 
Christians in their sorrow and suffering. This is very 
clearly expressed in 1 Thess. iv. 15—18, where the expec- 
tation of the second coming within the lifetime of the 

1 Jahrb. bibl. Wiss., iii. 1850—51, p. 173. 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL, 443 


writer and readers of the Epistle is confidently stated, 
and elsewhere, and even in 1 John ii. 18, the belief that 
the “last times” had arrived is expressed. The history 
of the Apocalypse in relation to the Canon illustrates the 
case. So long as the belief in the early consummation 
of all things continued strong the Apocalypse was the 
favourite writing of the early Church, but when time 
went on, and the second coming of Christ did not take 
place, the opinion of Christendom regarding the work 
changed, and disappointment as well as the desire to ex- 
plain the nonfulfilment of prophecies upon which so much 
hope had been based, led many to reject the Apocalypse 
as an unintelligible and fallacious book. We venture to 
conjecture that the tradition that John should not die 
until the second coming of Jesus may have originated 
with the Apocalypse where that event is announced to 
John as immediately to take place, xxii. 7, 10, 12, and 
the words with which the book ends are of this nature, 
and express the expectation of the writer, 20: “He which 
testifieth these things saith: Surely I come quickly. 
Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.” It was not in the spirit of 
the age to hesitate about such anticipations, and so long 
as the Apostle lived, such a tradition would scarcely 
have required or received contradiction from any one, 
the belief being universal that the coming of Jesus might 
take place any day, and assuredly would not be long 
delayed. When, however, the Apostle was dead, and 
the tradition that it had been foretold that he should live 
until the coming of the Lord exercised men’s minds, and 
doubt and disappointment at the non-fulfilment of what 
may have been regarded as prophecy produced a preju- 
dicial effect upon Christendom, it seemed to the writer 
of this Gospel a desirable thing to point out that too 


444 SUPERNATURATI, RELIGION. 


much stress had been laid upon the tradition, and that 
the words which had been relied upon in the first 
instance, did not justify the expectations which had been 
formed from them. This also contradicts the hypothesis 
that the Apostle John was the author of the Gospel. 
Such a passage as x1x. 35, received in any natural 
sense, or interpreted in any way which can be supported 
by evidence, shows that the writer of the Gospel was not 
an eye-witness of the events recorded, but appeals to the 
testimony of others. It is generally admitted that the 
expressions in ch. 1. 14 are of universal application, and 
capable of being adopted by all Christians, and, conse- 
quently, that they do not imply any direct claim on the 
part of the writer to personal knowledge of Jesus. We 
must now examine whether the Gospel itself bears 
special marks of having been written by an eye-witness, 
and how far in this respect it bears out the assertion that 
it was written by the Apostle John. It is constantly 
asserted that the minuteness of the details in the fourth 
Gospel indicates that it must have been written by one 
who was present at the scenes he records.. With regard 
to this point we need only generally remark, that in the 
works of imagination of which the world is full, and the 
singular realism of many of which is recognized by all, 
we have the most minute and natural details of scenes 
which never occurred, and of conversations which never 
took place, the actors in which never actually existed. 
Ewald admits that it-is undeniable that the fourth 
Gospel was written with a fixed purpose, and with 
artistic design, and, indeed, he goes further and recog- 
nizes that the Apostle could not possibly so long have 
recollected the discourses of Jesus and verbally repro- 
duced them, so that, in fact, we have only, at best, a 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 445 


substantial report of the matter of those discourses 
coloured by the mind of the author himself Details of 
scenes at which we were not present may be admirably 
supplied by imagination, and as we cannot compare 
what is described as taking place with what actually 
took place, such an argument as the identification of an 
eye-witness by details is absurd. Moreover, the details 
of the fourth Gospel in many cases do not agree with 
those of the three Synoptics, and it is an undoubted fact 
that the author of the fourth Gospel gives the details of 
scenes at which the Apostle John was not present, and 
reports the discourses and conversations on such occa- 
sions, with the very same minuteness as those at which 
he is said to have been present ; as, for instance, the 
interview between Jesus and the woman of Samaria. - It 
is perfectly undeniable that the writer had other Gospels 
before him when he composed his work, and that he 
made use of other materials than his own.? 

It is by no means difficult, however, to point out very 
clear indications that the author was not an eye-witness — 
but constructed his scenes and discourses artistically and 
for effect. We shall not, at present, dwell upon the 
almost uniform artifice adopted in most of the dialogues, 
in which the listeners either misunderstand altogether 
the words of Jesus, or interpret them in a foolish and 
material way, and thus afford him an opportunity of 


1 Jahrb. bibl. Wiss., x. p. 91 ff. 

2 Ewald, Jahrb. bibl. Wiss., iii. p. 161 ; Die Joh. Schr., i. p. 7 ff.; De 
Wette, Hinl. N. T., p. 209 f.; Bertholdt, Einl. A. u. N. T., iii. p. 1802 ; 
Lessing, Neue Hypothese, ὃ 51; Lichhorn, Einl. N. T., ii. p. 127 ff. ; 
Liicke, Comm. Ey. Joh., i. p. 197; Weitsse, Die ey. Gesch., i. p. 118 ff. ; 
Hilgenfeld, Die Evangelien, p. 329; Keim, Jesu y. Nazara, i. p. 118 ff. ; 
Weizsdcker, Unters. evang. Gesch., p. 270; Hug, Einl. N. T., ii. p. 191 ff. ; 
Holtzmann, Zeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1869, pp. 62 ff., 155 ff.; Schwegler, 
Der Montanismus, p. 205, anm. 137. 


446 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


enlarging upon the theme. For instance, Nicodemus, a 
ruler of the Jews, misunderstands the expression of 
Jesus, that in order to see the kingdom of God a man 
must be born from above, and asks: “‘How can a man 
be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into 
his mother’s womb and be born?”! Now, as it is well 
known and as we have already shown, the common 
expression used in regard to a proselyte to Judaism was 
that of being born again, with which every-Jew, and 
more especially every “ruler of the Jews,” must have 
been well acquainted. The stupidity which he displays 
in his conversation with Jesus, and with which the 
author endowed all who came in contact with him, in 
order, by the contrast, to mark more strongly the supe- 
riority of the Master, even draws from Jesus the remark : 
“‘ Art thou the teacher of Israel and understandest not 
these things?’? There can be no doubt that the scene 
was ideal, and it is scarcely possible that a Jew could have 
written it. In the Synoptics, Jesus is reported as quoting 
against the people of his own city, Nazareth, who re- 
jected him, the proverb: “A prophet has no honour in 
his own country.’”? The appropriateness of the remark 
here is obvious. The author of the fourth Gospel, 
however, shows clearly that he was neither an eye- 
witness nor acquainted with the subject or country when 
he introduces this proverb im a different place. Jesus is 
represented as staying two days at Sychar after his con- 
versation with the Samaritan woman. “Now after the 
two days he departed thence into Galilee. For (yap) 
Jesus himself testified that a prophet hath no honour in 
his own country. When, therefore (οὖν), he came into 


! John iii. 4. 2 1b., i. 10, 
3 Matt. xiii. 57; Mark vi. 4; Luke iv. 24. 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 447 


Galilee, the Galileeans received him, having seen all the 
things that he did in Jerusalem, at the feast—for they 
also went unto the feast.”! Now it is manifest that the 
quotation here is quite out of place, and none of the 
ingenious but untenable explanations of apologists can 
make it appropriate. He is made to go into Galilee, which 
was his country, because a prophet has no honour in his 
country, and the Galileans are represented as receiving 
him, which is a contradiction of the proverb, The writer 
evidently misunderstood the facts of the case or delibe- 
rately desired to deny the connection of Jesus with 
Nazareth and Galilee, in accordance with his evident 
intention of associating the Logos only with the Holy 
City. We must not pause to show that the author is 
generally unjust to the Galileans, and displays an igno- 
rance regarding them very unlike what we should expect 
from the fisherman of Galilee? We have already alluded 
to the artificial character of the conversation with the 
woman of Samaria, which, although given with so much 
detail, occurred at a place totally unknown (perhaps 
allegorically called the “City of Lies’), at which the 
Apostle John was not present, and the substance of 
which was typical of Samaria and its five nations and 
false gods. The continuation in the Gospel is as unreal 
as the conversation, Another instance displaying per- 
sonal ignorance is the insertion into a discourse at the 
Last Supper, and without any appropriate connection 
with the context, the passage ‘‘ Verily, verily, I say unto 


1 John iv. 43—45. 

2 We may merely refer to the remark of the Pharisees: scarch the 
Scriptures and see, ‘‘ for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet” (vii. 52). The 
Pharisees could not have been ignorant of the fact that the prophets 
Jonah and Nahum were Galileans, and the son of Zebedee could not have 
committed such an error ; ef. Bretschnetder, Probabilia, p. 99 f. 


448 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


you: he that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me, 
and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.”! 
In the Synoptics this sentence is naturally represented as 
part of the address to the disciples who are to be sent 
forth to preach the Gospel ;? but it is clear that its inser- 
tion here is a mistake.? Again, a very obvious slip, 
which betrays that what was intended for realistic detail 
is nothing but a reminiscence of some earlier Gospel 
misapplied, occurs in a later part of the discourses very 
inappropriately introduced as being delivered on the 
same occasion. At the end of xiv. 31, Jesus is repre- 
sented, after saying that he would no more talk much 
with the disciples, as suddenly breaking off with the 
words: “ Arise, let us go hence” (Ἐγείρεσθε, ἄγωμεν 
ἐντεῦθεν) They do not, however, arise and go thence, 
but, on the contrary, Jesus at once commences another 
long discourse : “I am the true vine,” &c. The expres- 
sion is merely introduced artistically to close one dis- 
course, and enable the writer to begin another, and the 
idea is taken from some earlier work ; for, in our first 
Synoptic, at the close of the Agony in the Garden which 
the fourth Gospel ignores altogether, Jesus says to the 
awakened disciples: ‘Rise, let us go” (Ἐγείρεσθε 
ἄγωμεν). We need not go on with these illustrations, 
but the fact that the author is not an eye-witness record- 
ing scenes which he beheld and discourses which he 
heard, but a writer composing an ideal Gospel on a 
fixed plan, will become more palpable as we proceed. 

It is not necessary to enter upon any argument to 

1 John xii. 20. 

2 Matt. x. 40; cf. xviii. 5; Luke x. 16, cf. ix. 48. 


3 This is recognised by De Wette, Hinl. N. T., p. 211 c¢. 
4 Matt. xxvyi. 46; Mark xiy. 42 ; De Wette likewise admits this mistaken 


‘reminiscence. ΕΗ]. N. T., p. 211 ὁ. 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 449 


prove the fundamental difference which exists in every 
respect between the Synoptics and the fourth Gospel. 
This is admitted even by apologists, whose efforts to 
reconcile the discordant elements are totally unsuccess- 
ful. “It is impossible to pass from the Synoptic Gospels 
to that of St. John,” says Canon Westcott, “ without 
feeling that the transition involves the passage from one 
world of thought to another. No familiarity with the 
general teaching of the Gospels, no wide conception of 
the character of the Saviour is sufficierit to destroy the 
contrast which exists in form and spirit between the 
earlier and later narratives.” The difference between 
the fourth Gospel and the Synoptics, not only as regards 
the teaching of Jesus but also the facts of the narrative, 
is so great that it is impossible to harmonize them, and 
no one who seriously considers the matter can fail to see 
that both cannot be accepted as correct. If we believe 
that the Synoptics give a truthful representation of the 
life and teaching of Jesus, it follows of necessity that, 
in whatever category we may decide to place the fourth 
Gospel, it must be rejected as a historical work. The 
theories which are most in favour as regards it may 
place the Gospel in a high position as an ideal composi- 
tion, but sober criticism must infallibly pronounce that 
they exclude it altogether from the province of history. 
There is no option but to accept it as the only genuine 
report of the sayings and doings of Jesus, rejecting the 
Synoptics, or to remove it at once to another depart- 
ment of literature. The Synoptics certainly contradict 
each other in many minor details, but they are not in 
fundamental disagreement with each other, and evidently 


1 Tntrod. to Study of the Gospels, p. 249. 


VOL, 11. GG 


450 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


present the same portrait of Jesus, and the same view of 
his teaching derived from the same sources. 

The vast difference which exists between the repre- 
sentation of Jesus in the fourth Gospel and im the 
Synoptics is too well recognized to require minute 
demonstration. We must, however, point out some of 
the distinctive features. We need not do more here 
than refer to the fact that whilst the Synoptics relate 
the circumstances of the birth of Jesus, two of them at 
least, and give some history of his family and origin, 
the fourth Gospel, ignoring all this, introduces the great 
Teacher at once as the Logos who from the beginning 
was with God and was himself God. The key-note is 
struck from the first, and in the philosophical prelude to 
the Gospel we have the announcement to those who have 
ears to hear, that here we need expect no simple history, 
but an artistic demonstration of the philosophical postu- 
late. According to the Synoptics, Jesus is baptized by 
John, and as he goes out of the water the Holy Ghost 
descends upon him like a dove. The fourth Gospel 
knows nothing of the baptism, and makes John the 
Baptist narrate vaguely that he saw the Holy Ghost 
descend like a dove and rest upon Jesus, as a sign pre- 
viously indicated to him by God by which to recognize 
the Lamb of God.’ From the very first, John the 
Baptist, in the fourth Gospel, recognizes and declares 
Jesus to be “the only-begotten God which is in the 
bosom of the Father,’? the Christ,? the Lamb of God 
which taketh away the sins of the world.* According 
to the Synoptics, John comes preaching the baptism 
of repentance, and so far is he from making such 


1 John i. 32—33. 2 John i. 18. 
πε παν καὶ δ ΤΡ, 1. 59. 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 451 


declarations, or forming such distinct opinions con- 
cerning Jesus, that even after he has been cast. into 
prison and just before his death,—when in fact his 
preaching was at an end,—he is represented as sending 
disciples to Jesus, on hearing in prison of his works, to 
ask him: “ Art thou he that should come, or look we for 
another ?”! Jesus carries on his ministry and baptizes 
simultaneously with John, according to the fourth 
Gospel, but his public career, according to the Synoptics, 
does not begin until after the Baptist’s has concluded, 
and John is cast into prison. The Synoptics clearly 
represent the ministry of Jesus as having been limited to 
a single year, and his preaching is confined to Galilee 
and Jerusalem, where his career culminates at the fatal 
Passover. The fourth Gospel distributes the teaching of 
Jesus between Galilee, Samaria, and Jerusalem, makes 
it extend at least over three years, and refers to three 
Passovers spent by Jesus at Jerusalem.* The Fathers 
felt this difficulty and expended a good deal of apologetic 
ingenuity upon it; but no one is now content with the 
explanation of Eusebius, that the Synoptics merely 
intended to write the history of Jesus during the one 
year after the imprisonment of the Baptist, whilst the 
fourth Evangelist recounted the events of the time not 
recorded by the others, a theory which is totally con- 
tradicted by the four Gospels themselves. The fourth ἢ 
Gospel represents the expulsion of the money-changers by 
Jesus as taking place at the very outset of his career,° 


1 Matt. xi. 2 ff.; cf. Luke vii. 18 ff. 

2 John iii. 22; Matt. iy. 12, 17; Mark i. 14; Luke iii. 20, 23; iv. 1 ff. 

3 John ii. 18; vi. 40f.; vii. 2; xii. 1. 

4 Husebius, H. ἘΝ, iii. 24. We have already referred to the theory of 
Treneeus, which is at variance with all the Gospels, and extends the career 
of Jesus to many years of public life. ® John ii. 14 ff. 


ΓΕ ΕἾ Ὁ. 


452 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


when he could not have been known, and when such a 
proceeding is incredible ; whilst the Synoptics place it at 
the very close of his ministry after his triumphal entry 
into Jerusalem, when, if ever, such an act, which might 
have contributed to the final catastrophe, first became 
either probable or possible." Upon the occasion of this 
episode, the fourth Gospel represents Jesus as replying 
to the demand of the Jews for a sign why he did such 
things: “ Destroy this temple, and within three days I 
will raise it up,’ which the Jews understand very 
naturally only in a material sense, and which even the 
disciples only comprehended and believed “after the 
resurrection.” The Synoptics not only know nothing of 
this, but represent the saying as the false testimony 
which the falsé witnesses bare against Jesus.? No such 
charge is brought against Jesus at all in the fourth 
Gospel. So little do the Synoptics know of the conver- 
sation of Jesus with the Samaritan woman, and his 
sojourn for two days at Sychar, that in his instructions 
to his disciples, in the first Gospel, Jesus positively for- 
bids them either to go to the Gentiles or to enter into 
any city of the Samaritans.* 

The fourth Gospel has very few miracles in common 
with the Synoptics, and those few present notable varia- 
tions. After the feeding of the five thousand, Jesus, 
according to the Synoptics, constrains his disciples to 
enter a ship and to go to the other side of the Lake of 
Gennesaret, whilst he himself goes up a mountain apart 
to pray. A storm arises, and Jesus appears walking to 
them over the sea, whereat the disciples are troubled, but 


1 Matt. xxi. 12 ff.; Mark xi. 15 ff.; Luke xix. 45 ff. 
3 John ii. 18 ff.; Matt. xxvi. 60 ff.; cf. xxvii. 39 f.; Mark xiy. 57 f.; 
xy. 29. 3 Matt. x. 5. 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 453 


Peter says to him: ‘ Lord, if it be thou, bid me come 
unto thee over the water,” and on his going out of the 
ship over the water, and beginning to sink, he cries: 
“Lord save me;” Jesus stretched out his hand and 
caught him, and when they had come into the ship, the 
wind ceased, and they that were in the ship came and 
worshipped him, saying : “ Of a truth thou art the Son of 
God.”* The fourth Gospel, instead of representing Jesus 
as retiring to the mountain to pray, which would have 
been opposed to the author’s idea of the Logos, makes 
the motive for going thither the knowledge of Jesus that 
the people “ would come and take him by force that they 
might make him aking.” The writer altogether ignores 
the episode of Peter walking on the sea, and adds a new 
miracle by stating that, as soon as Jesus was received on 
board, “the ship was at the land whither they were 
going.”* The Synoptics go on to describe the devout 
excitement and faith of all the country round, but the 
fourth Gospel, limiting the effect on the multitude in 
the first instance to curiosity as to how Jesus had crossed 
the Lake, represents Jesus as upbraidmg them with 
following him, not because they saw miracles, but be- 
cause they had eaten of the loaves and been filled,* and 
makes him deliver one of those long dogmatic discourses, 
interrupted by, and based upon, the remarks of the 
crowd, which so peculiarly distinguish the fourth Gospel. 

Without dwelling upon such details of miracles, how- . 
ever, we proceed with our slight comparison. Whilst 
the fourth Gospel from the very commencement asserts 
the foreknowledge of Jesus as to who should betray him, 
-and makes him inform the Twelve that one of them is a 


1 Matt. xiv. 22, 23; cf. Mark yi. 46 ff, 2 John vi. 15, 
3 John yi. 17—21. 4 7b., vi. 26, 


454 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


devil, alluding to Judas Iscariot,’ the Synoptics repre- 
sent Jesus as having so little foreknowledge that Judas 
should betray him, that, shortly before the end, and, 
indeed, according to the third Gospel, only at the last 
supper, Jesus promises that the disciples shall sit upon 
twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel,? and 
it is only at the last supper, after Judas has actually 
arranged with the chief priests, and ‘apparently from 
knowledge of the fact, that Jesus for the first time speaks 
of his betrayal by him.* On his way to Jerusalem, two 
days before the Passover,* Jesus comes to Bethany where, 
according to the Synoptics, being in the house of Simon 
the leper, a woman with an alabaster box of very pre- 
cious ointment came, and poured the ointment upon his 
head, much to the indignation of the disciples, who say : 
“To what purpose is this waste? For this might have 
been sold for much, and given to the poor.”® In the 
fourth Gospel the episode takes place six days before the 
Passover,® in the house of Lazarus, and it is his sister 
Mary who takes a pound of very costly ointment, but 
she anoints the feet of Jesus and wipes his feet with her 
hair. It is Judas Iscariot, and not the disciples, who 
says: “ Why was not this ointment sold for three hun- 
dred pence and given to the poor?” And Jesus makes 
a similar reply to that in the Synoptics, showing the 
identity of the occurrence described so differently.’ 

The Synoptics represent most clearly that Jesus on 


? John vi. 64, 70, 71; ef. ii. 25. 

2 Matt. xix. 28 ; cf. xvii. 22 f.; cf. Mark ix. 30f., x. 32 f.; Luke xxii. 
30; ef. ix. 22 f., 44 f.; xviii. 31 f. 

3 Matt. xxvi. 21 f., cf. 14 ff.; Mark xiv. 18 f., cf. 10f.; Luke xxii. 
21 f., of. SE 4 Mark xiv. 1. 

5 Matt. xxvi. 6-13; Mark xiv. 3—9. 

6 John xii. 1. 1 16. 20; 3 i: > ek Bo 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 455 


the evening of the 14th Nisan, after the custom of the 
Jews, ate the Passover with his disciples,’ and that he 
was arrested in the first hours of the 15th Nisan, the 
day on which he was put to death, Nothing can be 
more distinct than the statement that the last supper 
was the Paschal feast. ‘They made ready the Passover 
(ἡτοίμασαν τὸ πάσχα), and when the hour was come, he 
sat down and the Apostles with him, and he said to 
them: With desire I have desired to eat this Passover 
with you before I suffer” (Επιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα τοῦτο τὸ 
πάσχα φαγεῖν pe? ὑμῶν πρὸ τοῦ pe παθεῖν). The 
fourth Gospel, however, in accordance with the principle 
which is dominant throughout, represents the last repast 
which Jesus eats with his disciples as a common supper 
(δεῖπνον), which takes place, not on the 14th, but on 
the 13th Nisan, the day “‘ before the feast of the Passover” 
(πρὸ τῆς ἑορτῆς τοῦ πάσχα), and his death takes place on 
the 14th, the day on which the Paschal lamb was slain. 
Jesus is delivered by Pilate to the Jews to be crucified 
about the sixth hour of “the preparation of the Pass- 
over” (ἢν παρασκενὴ τοῦ πάσχα), and because it was 
“the preparation,” the legs of the two men crucified 
with Jesus were broken, that the bodies might not 
remain on the cross on the great day of the feast.© The 
fourth Gospel knows nothing of the institution of the 
Christian festival at the last supper, but instead, repre- 
sents Jesus as washing the feet of the disciples, enjoining 
them also to wash each other’s feet: ‘‘ For I gave you an 
example that ye should do according as I did to you.’® 


1 Matt. xxvi. 17f., 19, 36 ff., 47 ff.; Mark xiy. 12 ff., 16 ff; Luke 
xxii. 7 ff., 13 ff 

2 Luke xxii. 18, 15; cf. Matt. xxvi. 19 ff.; Mark xiv. 16 ff. 

8 John xiii. 1. 

4 John xix. 14. δ᾽ Τῇ, xix. 31 ff. 6 Jb., xiii. 12, 15. 


456 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


The Synoptics have no knowledge of this incident. 
Immediately after the warning to Peter of his future 
denial, Jesus goes out with the disciples to the Garden 
of Gethsemane, and, taking Peter and the two sons of 
Zebedee apart, began to be sorrowful and very depressed, 
and as he prayed in his agony that if possible the cup 
might pass from him, an angel comforts him. Instead 
of this, the fourth Gospel represents Jesus as delivering, 
after the warning to Peter, the longest discourses in the 
Gospel : “ Let not your heart be troubled,” ἄς. ; “I am 
the true vine,”? ἄς. ; and, although said to be written by 
one of the sons of Zebedee who were with Jesus on the 
occasion, the fourth Gospel totally ignores the agony in 
the garden, and, on the contrary, makes Jesus utter 
the long prayer xvii. 1—26, in a calm and even exulting 
spirit very far removed from the sorrow and depression 
of the more natural scene in Gethsemane. The prayer, 
like the rest of the prayers in the Gospel, is a mere 
didactic and dogmatic address for the benefit of the 
hearers. The arrest of Jesus presents a similar contrast. 
In the Synoptics, Judas comes with a multitude from the 
chief priests and elders of the people armed with swords 
and staves, and, indicating his Master by a kiss, Jesus is 
simply arrested and, after the slight resistance of one 
of the disciples, is led away. In the fourth Gospel the 
case is very different. Judas comes with a band of men 
from the chief priests and Pharisees, with lanterns and 
torches and weapons, and Jesus—“‘ knowing all things 
which were coming to pass”—himself goes towards 
them and asks: “ Whom seek ye?” Judas plays no 
active part, and no kiss is given. The fourth Evangelist 


1 John xiy. 1—31; xv. 1—27; xvi. 1—33; xvii. 1—26. 
2 Matt. xxvi. 47 ff.; Mark xiy. 43 ff.; Luke xxii. 47 ff. 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 457 


is, as ever, bent on showing that all which happens to 
the Logos is predetermined by himself and voluntarily 
encountered. As soon as Jesus replies: “I am he,” the 
whole band of soldiers go backwards and fall to the 
ground ; an incident thoroughly in the spirit of the early 
apocryphal Gospels still extant, and of an evidently 
legendary character. He is then led away first to Annas, 
who sends him to Caiaphas, whilst the Synoptics naturally 
know nothing of Annas, who was not the high priest 
and had no authority. We need not follow the trial, 
which is fundamentally different in the Synoptics and 
fourth Gospel; and we have already pointed out that 
in the Synoptics Jesus is crucified on the 15th Nisan, 
whereas in the fourth Gospel he is put to death—the 
spiritual Paschal lamb—on the 14th Nisan. According 
to the fourth Gospel, Jesus bears his own cross to 
Calvary,’ but the Synoptics represent it as being borne 
by Simon of Cyrene. As a very singular illustration of 
the inaccuracy of all the Gospels, we may point to the 
circumstance that no two of them agree even about so 
simple a matter of fact as the inscription on the cross, 
assuming that there was one at all. They give it respec- 
tively as follows: “ This is Jesus the King of the Jews;” 
“The King of the Jews ;” “This (is) the King of the 
Jews ;” and the fourth Gospel: ‘ Jesus the Nazarene the 
King of the Jews.’* The occurrences during the Cruci- 
fixion are profoundly different in the fourth Gospel from 
those narrated in the Synoptics. In the latter, only the 


1 John xix. 17. 

2 Matt. xxvii. 32; Mark xv. 21; Luke xxii. 26. 

3 Οὗτός ἐστιν ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων. Matt. xxvii. 37; ‘O 
βασιλεὺς τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων. Mark xy. 26; Ὃ βασιλεὺς τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων οὗτος, 
Luke xxiii. 38; Ἰησοῦς 6 Ναζωραῖος 6 βασιλεὺς τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων. John 
xix, 19, 


458 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


women are represented as beholding afar off,! but “the 
beloved disciple” is added in the fourth Gospel, and 
instead of being far off, they are close to the cross; and 
for the last cries of Jesus reported in the Synoptics we 
have the episode in which Jesus confides his mother 
to the disciple’s care. We need not compare the other 
details of the Crucifixion and Resurrection, which are 
differently reported by each of the Gospels. 

We have only pointed out a few of the more salient 
differences between the fourth Gospel and the Synoptics, 
which are rendered much more striking, in the Gospels 
themselves, by the profound dissimilarity of the senti- 
ments uttered by Jesus. We merely point out, in passing, 
the omission of important episodes from the fourth 
Gospel, such as the Temptation in the wilderness, the 
‘Transfiguration, at which, according to the Synoptics, 
the sons of Zebedee were present, the last Supper, the 
agony in the garden, the mournful cries on the cross, 
and, we may add, the Ascension; and if we turn to the 
miracles of Jesus, we find that almost all of those nar- 
rated by the Synoptics are ignored, whilst an almost 
entirely new series is introduced. There is not a single 
instance of the cure of demoniacal possession in any 
form recorded in the fourth Gospel. Indeed the number 
of miracles is reduced in that Gospel to a few typical 
cases ; and although at the close it is generally said that 
Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his dis- 
ciples, these alone are written with the declared purpose : 
“that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son 
of God.”? Without examining the miracles of the fourth 
Gospel in detail, we may briefly refer to one—the raising 


τ Matt. xxvii. 55 f. ;* Mark xy. 40 ἢ; Luke xxiii. 49. In this last place 
all his acquaintance are added. 3 John xx. 30 f. 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER/OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 459 


of Lazarus. The extraordinary fact that the Synoptics 
are utterly ignorant of this the greatest of the miracles 
attributed to Jesus has been too frequently discussed to 
require much comment here. It will be remembered 
that, as the case of the daughter of Jairus is, by the 
express declaration of Jesus, one of mere suspension of 
consciousness,’ the only instance in which a dead person 
is said to have been restored to life by Jesus in any of 
the Synopties is that of the son of the widow οἵ Nain.? 
It is, therefore, quite impossible to suppose that the 
Synoptists could have known of the raising of Lazarus, 
and wilfully omitted it. It is equally impossible to be- 
lieve that the authors of the Synoptic Gospels, from 
whatever sources they may have drawn their materials, 
could have been ignorant of such a miracle had it really 
taken place. This astounding miracle, according to the 
fourth Gospel, created such general excitement that it 
was one of the leading events which led to the arrest 
and crucifixion of Jesus.* If, therefore, the Synoptics 
had any connection with the writers to whom they are 
referred, the raising of Lazarus must have been personally 
known to their reputed authors either directly or through 
the Apostles who are supposed to have inspired them, or 
even upon any theory of contemporary origin the tradi- 
tion of the greatest miracle of Jesus must have been 
fresh throughout the Church, if such a wonder had 
ever been performed. The total ignorance of such a 
miracle displayed by the whole of the works of the New 
Testament, therefore, forms the strongest presumptive 
evidence that the narrative in the fourth Gospel is a 
mere imaginary scene, illustrative of the dogma : “I am 


1 Matt: ix. 24; Mark νυ. 39; Luke viii. 52. 2 Luke vii. 11 ff. 
3 John xi, 45 if., 53; xii. 9 ff., 17 ff. 


460 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


7) 


the resurrection and the life,” upon which it is based. 
This conclusion is confirmed by the peculiarities of the 
narrative itself. When Jesus first hears, from the mes- 
sage of the sisters, that Lazarus whom he loved was 
sick, he declares, xi. 4: ‘‘ This sickness is not unto death, 
but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be 
glorified thereby ;” and v. 6: “ When, therefore (οὖν), he 
heard that he was sick, at that time he continued two 
days in the place where he was.” After that time he 
proposes to go into Judea, and explains to the disciples, 
v. 11: “ Our friend Lazarus is fallen asleep ; but I go 
that I may awake him out of sleep.” The disciples 
reply, with the stupidity with which the fourth Evan- 
gelist endows all those who hold colloquy with Jesus, 
v. 12: “Lord, if he is fallen asleep, he will recover. 
Howbeit, Jesus spake of his death; but they thought 
that he was speaking of the taking of rest in sleep. 
Then said Jesus unto them plainly: Lazarus is dead, 
and I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the 
intent that ye may believe.” The artificial nature of 
all this introductory matter will not have escaped the 
reader, and it is further illustrated by that which follows. 
Arrived at Bethany, they find that Lazarus has lain in 
the grave already four days. Martha says to Jesus 
(v. 21 £.): “Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother 
had not died. And I know that even now whatsoever thou 
shalt ask of God, God will give thee. Jesus saith unto 
her : Thy brother shall rise again.” Martha, of course, as 
usual, misunderstands this saying as applying to “the 
resurrection at the last day,” in order to introduce the 
reply :. “1 am the resurrection and the life,” &. When 
they come to the house, and Jesus sees Mary and the 
Jews weeping, “he groaned in spirit and troubled him- 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 461 


self,” and on reaching the grave itself (v. 35 f.), “Jesus 
wept : Then said the Jews: Behold how he loved him!” 
Now this representation, which has ever since been the 
admiration of Christendom, presents the very strongest 
marks of unreality. Jesus, who loves Lazarus so much, 
disregards the urgent message of the sisters and, whilst 
openly declaring that his sickness is not unto death, 
intentionally lingers until his friend dies. When he does 
go to Bethany, and is on the very point of restoring 
Lazarus to life and dissipating the grief of his family 
and friends he actually weeps, and groans in his spirit. 
There is so total an absence of reason for such grief that 
these tears, to any sober reader, are seen to be the 
theatrical adjuncts of a dramatic scene elaborated out of 
the imagination of the writer. The suggestion of the 
bystanders (v. 37), that he might have prevented the 
death, is not more probable than the continuation (v. 38) : 
“ Jesus, therefore, again groaning in himself cometh to 
the grave.’ Then, having ordered the, stone to be re- 
moved, he delivers a prayer avowedly intended merely 
for the bystanders (v. 41 ff.) : “ And Jesus lifted up his 
eyes and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard. 
me, and I knew that thou hearest me always: but for 
the sake of the multitude which stand around I said this, 
that they may believe that thou hast sent me.” This 
prayer is as evidently artificial as the rest of the details 
of the miracle, but like other elaborately arranged scenic 
representations the charm is altogether dispelled when 
closer examination shows the character of the dramatic 
elements. A careful consideration of the narrative and 
of all the facts of the case must, we think, lead to the con- 
clusion that this miracle is not even a historical tradition 
of the life of Jesus, but is wholly an ideal composition by 


462 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


the author of the fourth Gospel. This being the case, 
the other miracles of the Gospel need not detain us. 

If the historical part of the fourth Gospel be in irre- 
concilable contradiction to the Synoptics, the didactic is 
infinitely more so. The teaching of the one is totally 
different from that of the others, in spirit, form, and 
terminology ; and in the prolix discourses of the fourth 
Gospel there is not a single characteristic of the simple 
eloquence of the Sermon on the Mount. In the diffuse 
mysticism of the Logos we cannot recognise a trace of 
the terse practical wisdom of Jesus of Nazareth. It 
must, of course, be apparent even to the most superficial 
observer that, in the fourth Gospel, we are introduced to 
a perfectly new system of instruction, and to an order of 
ideas of which there is not a vestige in the Synoptics. 
Instead of short and concise lessons full of striking 
truth and point, we find nothing but long and involved 
dogmatic discourses of little practical utility. The 
limpid spontaneity of that earlier teaching, with its 
fresh illustrations and profound sentences uttered without 
effort and untinged by art, is exchanged for diffuse 
addresses and artificial dialogues, in which labour and 
design are everywhere apparent. From pure and living 
morality couched in brief incisive sayings, which enter 
the heart and dwell upon the ear, we turn to elaborate 
philosophical orations without clearness or order, and to 
doctrinal announcements unknown to the Synoptics. To 
the inquiry: ‘What shall I do to inherit eternal life ?” 
Jesus replies, in the Synoptics: “Thou shalt love the 
Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, 
and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself, 
Jiu Gee this do, and thou shalt live.’! In the fourth 


' Luke x. 25—28; cf. Mark xix. 16 ff.; xxii. 86—40. 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 463 


Gospel, to the question: “ What must we do, that we’ 
may work the works of God?” Jesus answers, ‘This is 
_ the work of God, that ye should believe in him whom 
he sent.’ The teaching of Jesus, in the Synoptics, is 
almost wholly moral, but, in the fourth Gospel, it is 
almost wholly dogmatic. If Christianity consist of the 
doctrines preached in the fourth Gospel, it is not too 
much to say that the Synoptics do not teach Christianity 
at all. The extraordinary phenomenon is presented of 
three Gospels, each professing to be complete in itself 
and to convey the good tidings of salvation to man, 
which have actually omitted the doctrines which are the 
condition of that salvation. The fourth Gospel prac- 
tically expounds a new religion. It is undeniable that 
inorality and precepts of love and charity for the conduct 
of life are the staple of the teaching of Jesus in the 
Synoptics, and that dogma occupies so small a place that 
it is regarded as a subordinate and secondary considera- 
tion. In the fourth Gospel, however, dogma is the one 
thing needful, and forms the whole substance of the 
preaching of the Logos. The burden of his teaching is: 
‘“* He that believeth on the Son, hath eternal life, but he 
that believeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the 
wrath of God abideth on him.”’? It is scarcely possible 
to put the contrast between the Synoptics and the fourth 
Gospel in too strong a light. If we possessed the 
Synoptics without the fourth Gospel, we should have the 
exposition of the most sublime morality based on perfect 
love to God and man. If we had the fourth Gospel 
without the Synoptics, we should have little more than a 
system of dogmatic mysticism without Christian morality. 
Not only is the doctrine and the terminology of the Jesus 


1 John yi. 28, 29. £ John iii. 36. 


464 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION, 


of the fourth Gospel quite different from that of the 
Jesus of the Synoptics, but so is the teaching of John 
the Baptist. In the Synoptics, he comes preaching the. 
baptism of repentance,’ and, like the Master, inculcating 
principles of morality ;? but in the fourth Gospel he has 
adopted the peculiar views of the author, proclaims “ the 
Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world,”* 
and bears witness that he is “the Son of God.”* We 
hear of the Paraclete for the first time in the fourth 
Gospel. | 

In a word, the Synoptics unfold a teaching of sublime 
morality, for which the fourth Gospel substitutes a 
scheme of dogmatic theology of which the others know 
nothing. 

It is so impossible to ignore the distinct individuality 
of the Jesus of the fourth Gospel, and of his teaching, 
that even apologists are obliged to admit that the pecu- 
liarities of the author have coloured the portrait, and 
introduced an element of subjectivity into the discourses. 
It was impossible, they confess, that the Apostle could 
remember verbally such long orations for half a century, 
and at best that they can only be accepted as substan- 
tially correct reports of the teaching of Jesus5 “The 


1 Matt. iii. 1 ff.; Marki. 4 ff.; Luke iii. 2 ff. 

3 Luke iii. 8, 10 ff. 3 Johni. 29, 36. * Tb., i. 34. 

5 Bleek, Einl. N. T., p. 200; Beitrage, p. 242 f.; Ewald, Jahrb. bibl. 
Wiss., x. p. 91f.; G/rérer, Allg. K. G., i. p. 172f.: Das Heiligthum 
τ. ἃ. Wahrheit, 1838, p. 331; Liicke, Comment. Ev. Joh., i. p. 242; 
Weizsiicker, Unters. evang. Gesch., pp. 238 ff., 253 ff., 265; Reuss, Gesch. 
Ν. T., p. 215 f.; Baur, Theol. Jahrb., 1844, p. 452 ff.; B. Bauer, Krit. 
ἃ. ey. Gesch. ἃ. Johan., 1840; Colani, Rey. ἃ. Théol. 1851, ii. p. 38 ff. ; 
Weisse, Die evang. Gesch., i. p. 105 ff. ; Scholten, Das Ey. Johan., p. 186; 
Davidson, Int. N. T., ii. p. 439 £.; Bretschneider, Probabilia, pp. 31 ff., 
113 f.; Renan, Vie de Jésus, xiii™ éd., p. lxix. ff.; De Wette, Einl. 
N. T., p. 212 f£., p. 232 ff. ; Kayser, Rey. de Théol., 1856, xiii. p. 74f., 
&c., ὅσ, 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 465 


discourses of Christ and of others in this Gospel, 
pre-eminently,” says Ewald, “are clothed as by an 
entirely new colour: on this account also scepticism has 
desired to conclude that the Apostle cannot have com- 
posed the Gospel; and yet no conclusion is more un- 
founded, When the Apostle at so late a period determined 
to compose the work, it was certainly impossible for him 
to reproduce all the words exactly as they were once 
spoken, if he did not perhaps desire not merely to recall 
a few memorable sentences, but, in longer discussions of 
more weighty subjects, to charm back all-the animation 
with which they were once given. So he availed him- 
self of that freedom in their revivification which is both 
quite intelligible of itself, and sufficiently warranted 
by the precedent of so many greater examples of all 
antiquity : and where the discourses extend to greater 
length, there flowed involuntarily in their composition 
much of that intuitive conception and form of expression 
regarding the manifestation of Christ which had long 
become deeply rooted in the Apostle’s soul. But as 
certainly as these discourses bear upon them the colour- 
ing of the Apostle’s mind, so certainly do they agree in 
their substantial contents with his best recollections— 
because the Spruchsammlung proves that the discourses 
of Christ in certain moments really could elevate them- 
selves to the full height, which in John only throughout 
surprises us more than in Matthew(!). To deny the 
Gospel to the Apostle for such reasons were, therefore, 
pure folly, and in the highest degree unjust. Moreover 
the circumstance that we sometimes in the design of 
such discourses again meet with, or even see further 
developed, expressions which had been already noted 
down in the older Gospels, can prove nothing against 


VOL. I. Wu 


100 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


the apostolical origin of the Gospel, as it was indeed 
fully open to him to make use of the contents of such 
older writings, if it pleased him, when he considered it 
desirable, and when they came to the help of his own 
memory of those long passed days: for he certainly 
retained many or all of such expressions also in his own 
memory.”' Elsewhere, he describes the work as “ glorified 
Gospel history,” composed out of “ glorified recollection.”? 

Another strenuous defender of the authenticity of the 
fourth Gospel wrote of it as follows: “ Nevertheless 
everything is reconciled,” says Gfrorer, “if one accepts 
that testimony of the elders as true. For as John must 
have written the Gospel as an old man, that is to say 
not before the year 90—95 of our era, there is an 
interval of more than half a century between the time 
when the events which he relates really happened, and 
the time of the composition of his book,—space enough 
certainly to make a few mistakes conceivable even pre- 
supposing a good memory and unshaken love of truth. 
Let us imagine for instance that to-day (in 1841) an old 
man of eighty to ninety years of age should write down 
from mere memory the occurrences of the American 
War (of Independence), in which he himself in his early 
youth played a part. Certainly many passages in his 
narrative would be found, even though they might 
otherwise be true, which would not agree with the 
original event. Moreover another particular circumstance 
must be added in connection with the fourth Gospel. Two- 
thirds of it consist of discourses, which John places 
in the mouth of Jesus Christ. Now every day’s ex- 


1 Jahrb. bibl. Wiss., x. p. 91. 
Ξ << Verklarte Evangelische Geschichte,” — ‘‘ verklarte erinnerung.” 
Jahrb. bibl. Wiss., iii. p. 163, p. 166. 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARAOTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 467 


perience proves that oral impressions are much more 
fleeting than those of sight. The happiest memory 
scarcely retains long orations after three or four years: 
how, then, could John with verbal accuracy report the 
discourses of Jesus after fifty or sixty years! We must 
be content if he truly render the chief contents and 
spirit of them, and that, as a rule, he does this, can be 
proved, It has been shown above that already, before 
Christ, a very peculiar philosophy of religion had been 
formed among the Egyptian Jews, which found its way 
into Palestine through the Essenes, and also numbered 
numerous adherents amongst the Jews of the adjacent 
countries of Syria and Asia Minor. The Apostle Paul 
professed this: not less the Evangelist John. Un- 
doubtedly the latter allowed this Theosophy to exercise 
a strong influence upon his representation of the life- 
history of Jesus,”? &c. 

Now all such admissions, whilst they are absolutely 
requisite to explain the undeniable phenomena of the 
fourth Gospel, have one obvious consequence: The fourth 
Gospel, by whomsoever written,—even if it could be 
traced to the Apostle John himself,—has no real his- 
torical value, being at best the “ glorified recollections ἢ 
of an old man written down half a century after the 
events recorded. The absolute difference between the 
teaching of this Gospel and of the Synoptics becomes 
perfectly intelligible, when the long discourses are recog- 
nized to be the result of Alexandrian Philosophy artisti- 
cally interwoven with developed Pauline Christianity, and 
put into the mouth of Jesus. It will have been remarked 
that along with the admission of great subjectivity in 
the report of the discourses, and that nothing beyond the 


1 Gfrorer, Allg. K. G., 1841, 1. Ῥ. 172 f. 
HH 2 


463 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


mere substance of the original teaching can reasonably 
be looked for, there is, in the extracts we have given, an 
assertion that there actually is a faithful reproduction in 
this Gospel of the original substance. Now there is not 
a shadow of proof of this, but on the contrary the 
strongest reason for denying the fact; for, unless it be 
accepted that the Synoptics have so completely omitted 
the whole doctrinal part of the teaching of Jesus, have 
so carefully avoided the very peculiar terminology of the 
Logos Gospel, and have conveyed so unhistorical and 
erroneous an impression of the life and religious system 
of Jesus that, without the fourth Gospel, we should not 
actually have had an idea of his fundamental doctrines, 
we must inevitably recognize that the fourth Gospel 
cannot possibly be a true reproduction of his teaching. 
It is impossible that Jesus can have had two such 
diametrically opposed systems of teaching,—one purely 
moral, the other wholly dogmatic; one expressed in 
wonderfully terse, clear, brief sayings and parables, the 
other in long, involved, and diffuse discourses; one 
clothed in the great language of humanity, the other 
concealed in obscure philosophic terminology ;—and that 
these should have been kept so distinct as they are in the 
Synoptics, on the one hand, and the fourth Gospel, on 
the other. The tradition of Justin Martyr applies solely 
to the system of the Synoptics: ‘ Brief and concise were 
the sentences uttered by him : for he was no Sophist, but 
his word was the power of God.”? 

We have already pointed out the evident traces of 
artificial construction in the discourses and dialogues of 
the fourth Gospel, and the more closely these are examined, 
the more clear does it become that they are not genuine 


1 Apol., 1. 14, see vol. ii. p. 47. 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 469 


reports of the teaching of Jesus, but mere ideal compo- 
sitions by the author of the fourth Gospel. The speeches 
of John the Baptist, the discourses of Jesus, and the 
reflections of the Evangelist himself,’ are marked by 
the same peculiarity of style and proceed from the same 
mind. It is scarcely possible to determine where the 
one begins and the other ends.? It is quite clear, for 
instance, that the author himself, without a break, con- 
tinues the words which he puts into the mouth of Jesus, 
in the colloquy with Nicodemus, but it is not easy to 
determine where. ‘The whole dialogue is artificial in 
the extreme, and is certainly not genuine, and this is 
apparent not only from the replies attributed to the 
“teacher of Israel,” but to the irrelevant manner in 
which the reflections loosely ramble from the new birth 
to the dogmatic statements in the thirteenth and follow- 
ing verses, which are the never-failing resource of the 
Evangelist when other subjects are exhausted. The 
sentiments and almost the words either attributed to 
Jesus, or added by the writer, to which we are now 
referring, iii. 12 ff, we find again in the very same 
chapter, either put into the mouth of John the Baptist, 
or as reflections of the author, verses 31—36, for again 
we add that it is difficult anywhere to discriminate the 
speaker. Indeed, while the Synoptics are rich in the 
abundance of practical counsel and profound moral 
insight, as well as in variety of illustrative parables, it is 
remarkable how much sameness there is in all the dis- 
courses of the fourth Gospel, a very few ideas being 
constantly reproduced. Whilst the teaching of Jesus in 
the Synoptics is singularly universal and impersonal, in 
the fourth Gospel it is purely personal, and rarely passes 
1 John i, 1—18, &e., &e. 2 Of. ib., i, 15 ff., iii. 27 ff., 10—21, 


470 SUPERNATURAL: RELIGION. 


beyond the declaration of his own dignity, and the incul- 
cation of belief in him as the only means of salvation. 
A very distinct trace of ideal composition is found in 
xvii. 3: “And this is eternal life, to know thee the only 
true God, and him whom thou didst send, even Jesus 
Christ.” Even apologists admit that it is impossible that 
Jesus could speak of himself as “Jesus Christ.” We 
need not, however, proceed further with such analysis. 
We believe that no one can calmly and impartially 
examine the fourth Gospel without being convinced of 
its artificial character. If some portions possess real 
beauty, it is of a purely ideal kind, and their attraction 
consists chiefly in the presence of a certain vague but 
suggestive mysticism. The natural longing of humanity 
for any revelation regarding a future state has not been 
appealed to in vain. That the diffuse and often mono- 
tonous discourses of this Gospel, however, should ever 
have been preferred to the sublime simplicity of the 
teaching of the Synoptics, illustrated by such parables 
as the wise and foolish virgins, the sower, and the 
Prodigal Son, and culminating in the Sermon on the 
Mount, each sentence of which is so full of profound 
truth and beauty, is little to the credit of critical sense 
and judgment. 

The elaborate explanations, however, by which the 
phenomena of the fourth Gospel are reconciled with the 
assumption that it was composed by the Apostle John are 
in vain, and there is not a single item of evidence within 
the first century and a half which does not agree with 
internal testimony in opposing the supposition. ‘To one 
point, however, we must briefly refer in connection with 
this statement. It is asserted that the Gospel and 
Epistles—or at least the first Epistle—of the Canon 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 471 


ascribed to the Apostle John are by one author, although 
this is not without contradiction,’ and very many of 
those who agree as to the identity of authorship by no 
means admit the author to have been the Apostle Jolin. 
It is argued, therefore, that the use of the Epistle by 
Polycarp and Papias is evidence of the apostolic origin of 
the Gospel. We have, however, seen, that not only is it 
very uncertain that Polycarp made use of the Epistle at 
all, but that he does not in any case mention its author’s 
name. There is not a particle of evidence that he 
ascribed the Epistle, even supposing he knew it, to the 
Apostle John. With regard to Papias, the only authority 
for the assertion that he knew the Epistle is the state- 
ment of Eusebius already quoted and discussed, that : 
“He used testimonies out of John’s first Epistle.” ? 
There is no evidence, however, even supposing the 
statement of Eusebius to be correct, that he ascribed it to 
the Apostle. The earliest undoubted references to the 
Epistle, in fact, are by Irenzeus and Clement of Alex- 
andria, so that this evidence is of little avail for the 
Gospel. There is no name attached to the first Epistle, 
and the second and third have the superscription of “the 
Presbyter,’ which, applying the argument of Ewald 
regarding the author of the Apocalypse, ought to be con- 
clusive against their being written by an Apostle. As all 
three are evidently by the same writer, and intended to 
be understood as by the author of the Gospel, and that 
writer does not pretend to be an Apostle, but calls 
himself a simple Presbyter, the Epistles likewise give 

1 Baur, Theol. Jahrb., 1844, p. 666 f., 1848, pp. 298—337 ; Unters kan. 
Evy., p. 350; Davidson, Int. N. T., ii, p. 293 ff. ; Zeller, Theol. Jahrb., 
1845, p. 588 f., 1847, p. 137. Credner assigns the second and third 


Epistle not to the Apostle but to the Presbyter John. Finl. N. T., i. 
p- 687 ff. 3 H. E., Vv. 8, 


472 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION, 


presumptive evidence against the apostolic authorship of 
the Gospel 

There is another important testimony against the 
Johannine origin of the fourth Gospel to which we must 
briefly refer. We have pointed out that, according to 
the fourth Gospel, Jesus did not eat the Paschal Supper 
with his disciples, but that being arrested on the 13th 
Nisan, he was put to death on the 14th, the actual 
day upon which the Paschal lamb was sacrificed. ‘The 
Synoptics, on the contrary, represent that Jesus ate the 
Passover with his disciples on the evening of the 14th, 
and was crucified on the 15th Nisan. The difference 
of opinion indicated by these contradictory accounts 
actually prevailed in various Churches, and in the 
second half of the second century a violent discussion 
arose as to the day upon which “the true Passover of 
the Lord” should be celebrated, the Church in Asia 
Minor maintaining that it should be observed on the 
14th Nisan,—the day on which, according to the Synop- 
tics, Jesus himself celebrated the Passover and instituted 
the Christian festival,—whilst the Roman Church as well 
as most other Christians,—following the fourth Gospel, 
which represents Jesus as not celebrating the last Pass- 
over, but being himself slain upon the 14th Nisan, the 
true Paschal lamb,—had abandoned the day of the Jewish 
feast altogether, and celebrated the Christian festival on 
Easter Sunday, upon which the Resurrection was supposed 
to have taken place. Polycarp, who was sent to Rome 
to represent the Churches of Asia Minor in the discussions 
upon the subject, could not -be induced to give up the 
celebration on the 14th Nisan, the day which, according 
to tradition, had always heen observed, and he appealed 
to the practice of the Apostle John himself in support of 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 473 


that date. Euschius quotes from Irenseus the statement 
of the case: “ For neither could Anicetus persuade Poly- 
carp not to observe it (the 14th Nisan), because he had 
ever observed it with John the disciple of our Lord, and 
with the rest of the Apostles with whom he consorted.” ! 
Towards the end of the century, Polycrates, the Bishop 
of Ephesus, likewise appeals to the practice of “John 
who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord,” as well as of — 
the Apostle Philip and his daughters, and of Polycarp and 
others in support of the same day : “ All these observed 
the 14th day of the Passover, according to the Gospel, 
without variation, but following according to the rule of 
faith.”? Now it is evident that, according to this un- 
doubted testimony, the Apostle John by his own practice 
ratified the account of the Synoptics, and contradicted 
the data of the fourth Gospel, and upon the supposition 
that he so long lived in Asia Minor it is probable that 
his authority largely contributed to establish the ob- 
servance of the 14th Nisan there. We must, therefore, 
either accept that the Apostle John by his practice 
reversed the statement of his own Gospel, or that he was 
not its author, which of course is the natural conclusion. 
Without going further into the discussion, which would 
detain us too long, it is clear that the Paschal contro- 
versy is opposed to the supposition that the Apostle John 
was the author of the fourth Gospel.* 


1 Οὔτε γάρ ὁ ’Avixnros τὸν Πολύκαρπον πεῖσαι ἐδύνατο μὴ τηρεῖν, Gre μετὰ 
Ἰωάννου τοῦ μαθητοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν, καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἀποστόλων οἷς συνδιέ- 
τριψεν,. ἀεὶ τετηρηκότα, κιτιλ. Lrenceus, Ady, Heer., iii. 8, ὃ 4; Husebius, 
Hi. E., v. 24. 

2 Οὗτοι πάντες ἐτήρησαν τὴν ἡμέραν τῆς τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτης τοῦ πάσχα κατὰ 
τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, μηδὲν παρεκβαίνοντες, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸν κανύνα τῆς πίστεως ἀκολου-- 
θοῦντες. Eusebius, H. E., vy. 24. 

3 Baur, Unters. kan. Evy., p. 334 ff. ; Theol. Jahrb., 1857, p. 2 
K. G. drei erst, Jahrh., p. 156 ff.; Davidson, Int. N. T., ii. p. 403 ff. ; 


474 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION, 


We have seen that, whilst there is not one particle of 
evidence during a century and a half after the events 
recorded in the fourth Gospel that it was composed by 
the son of Zebedee, there is, on the contrary, the 
strongest reason for believing that he did not write it. 
The first writer who quotes a passage of the Gospel with 
the mention of his name is Theophilus of Antioch, who 
gives the few words: “In the beginning was the Word 
and the Word was with God,” as spoken by “ John,” 
whom he considers amongst the divinely inspired (οἱ 
πνευματοφόροι)," though even he does not distinguish 
him as the Apostle. We have seen the legendary nature 
of the late traditions regarding the composition of the © 
Gospel, of which a specimen was given in the defence of 
it in the Canon of Muratori, and we must not further 
quote them. The first writer who distinctly classes the 
four Gospels together is Irenzeus ; and the reasons which 
he gives for the existence of precisely that number in 
the Canon of the Church illustrate the thoroughly 
uncritical character of the Fathers, and the slight 
dependence which can be placed upon their judgments. 
“ But neither can the Gospels be more in number than 
- they are,” says Irenzeus, “ nor, on the other hand, can 
they be fewer. For as there are four quarters of the 
world in which we are, and four general winds (καθολικὰ 
πνεύματα), and the Church is disseminated throughout 
all the world, and the Gospel is the pillar and prop of the 
Church and the spirit of life, it is right that she should 


Hilgenfeld, Die Evangelien, p. 341 ff.; Der Paschastreit, τι. 85. w., Theol. 
Jahrb., 1849, p. 209 f. ; Der Paschastreit, 1860; Scholten, Das Ev. Johan., 
p. 387 ff. De sterfdag van Jezus yolgens het vierde Evangelie, 1856; 
Schwegler, Der Montanismus, p. 191 ff. 

1 Ad Autolyc., ii. 22. Tischendorf dates this work about A.D. 180. 
Wann wurden, τι. s. w., p. 16, anm. 1. 


AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 475 


have four pillars, on all sides breathing out immortality 
and revivifying men. From which it is manifest that 
the Word, the maker of all, he who sitteth upon the 
Cherubim and containeth all things, who was manifested 
to man, has given to us the Gospel, four-formed but pos- 
sessed by one spirit; as David also says, supplicating 
his advent: ‘ Thou that sittest between the Cherubim, 
shine forth. For the Cherubim also are four-faced, 
and their faces are symbols of the working of the Son of 
God ... . and the Gospels, therefore, are in harmony 
with these amongst which Christ is seated. For the 
Gospel according to John relates his first effectual and 
glorious generation from the Father, saying: ‘In the 
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, 
and God was the Word,’ and ‘all things were made by 
him, and without him nothing was made.’ On this 
account also this Gospel is full of all assurance, for such 
is his person.’ But the Gospel according to Luke, being 
as it were of priestly character, opened with Zacharias 
the priest sacrificing to God..... But Matthew 
narrates his generation as a man, saying: ‘The book of 
the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son 
of Abraham,’ and ‘the birth of Jesus Christ was on this 
wise.’ ‘This, therefore, is the Gospel of his humanity, 
and on this account a man, humble and mild in character, 
is presented throughout the Gospel. But Mark makes 
his commencement after a prophetic Spirit coming down 
from on high unto men, saying: ‘The beginning of the 
Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the 
prophet ;’ indicating the winged form of the Gospel ; and 


1The Greek of this rather unintelligible sentence is not preserved. 
The Latin version reads as follows: Propter hoc et omni fiducia plenum 
est Evangelium istud ; talis est enim persona ejus. 


476 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


for this reason he makes a compendious and precursory 
declaration, for this is the prophetic character. . . 
Such, therefore, as was the course of the Son of God, 
such also is the form of the living creatures ; and such as 
is the form of the living creatures, such also is the 
character of the Gospel. For quadriform are the living 
creatures, quadriform is the Gospel, and quadriform the 
course of the Lord. And on this account four covenants 
were given to the human race ..... These things being 
thus ; vain and ignorant, and, moreover, audacious are 
those who set aside the form of the Gospel, and declare 
the aspects of the Gospels as either more or less than has 
been said.” As such principles of criticism presided 
over the formation of the Canon, it is not singular that so 
many of the decisions of the Fathers have been reversed. 
Irenzeus himself mentioned the existence of heretics who 
rejected the fourth Gospel,? and Epiphanius* refers to 
the Alogi, who equally denied its authenticity, but it is 
not needful for us further to discuss this point. Enough 
has been said to show that the testimony of the fourth 
Gospel is of no value towards establishing the truth of 
miracles and the reality of Divine Revelation. 


1 Trenceus, Ady. Heer., iii. 11, §§ 8, 9. 
3 Ady. Heer., iii. 2, § 9. 3 Heer., li. 3, 4, 28. 


CONCLUSIONS. 477 


CHAPTER II. 
CONCLUSIONS. 


We may now briefly sum up the conclusions to which 
we are led by our inquiry into the reality of Divine 
Revelation, although we shall carefully confine ourselves 
within certain limits, in order that we may not too far 
anticipate the fuller observations which we shall have to 
make at the close of the second portion of this work, 
when we find the results at which we now arrive con- 
firmed by more comprehensive examination of the 
subject. It is impossible to refrain from some anticipa- 
tion of final reflections, nor would it be right to delay a 
clear statement of what we believe to be the truth and 
its consequences. 

We have seen that a Divine Revelation is such only 
by virtue of communicating to us something which we 
could not know without it, and which is in fact undis- 
coverable by human reason; and that miraculous evi- 
dence is absolutely requisite to establish its reality. It 
is admitted that no other testimony could justify our 
believing the specific revelation which we are considering, 
the very substance of which is supernatural and beyond 
the criterion of reason, and that its astounding announce- 
ments, if not demonstrated to be miraculous truths, must 
inevitably be pronounced “the wildest delusions.” “On 
examining the supposed miraculous evidence, however, 


“ 


478 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


we find that not only is it upon general grounds ante- 
cedently incredible, but that the testimony by which its 
reality is supported, so far from establishing the infer- 
ences drawn from the supposed supernatural phenomena, 
is totally insufficient even to certify the actual occurrence 
of the events narrated. ‘The history of miraculous pre- 
tension in the world, and the circumstances attending 
this special exhibition of it, suggest natural explanations 
of the reported facts which rightly and infallibly remove 
them from the region of the supernatural. 

Even if the reality of miracles could be substantiated, 
their value as evidence for the Divine Revelation is 
destroyed by the necessary admission that miracles are 
not limited to one source, but that there are miracles 
Satanic which are to be disbelieved, as well as Divine 
and evidential, As the doctrines supposed to be revealed 
are beyond Reason, and cannot in any sense, therefore, 
be intelligently approved by the human intellect, no 
evidence which is of so double and inconclusive a nature 
could sufficiently attest them. ‘This alone would dis- 
qualify the Christian miracles for the duty which miracles 
alone are considered capable of performing. 

The supposed miraculous evidence for the Divine 
Revelation, moreover, is not only without any special 
divine character, being avowedly common also to Satanic 
agency, but it is not original either in conception or 
details. Similar miracles to those.which are supposed to 
attest it are reported long antecedent to the promulga- 
tion of Christianity, and continued to be performed for 
centuries after it. A stream of miraculous pretension, 
in fact, has flowed through all human history, deep and 
broad as it has passed through the darker ages, but 
dwindling down to a thread as it has entered days of — 


CONCLUSIONS. -. 479 


enlightenment. The evidence was too hackneyed and 
commonplace to make any impression upon those before 
whom the Christian nriracles are said to have been per- 
formed, and it altogether failed to convince the people to 
whom the Revelation was primarily addressed. The selec- 
tion of such evidence for such a purpose is much more 
characteristic of human weakness than of divine power. 

The true character of miracles is at once betrayed 
by the fact that their supposed occurrence has been 
confined to ages of ignorance and superstition, and that 
they are absolutely unknown in any time or place 
where science has provided witnesses fitted to appreciate 
and ascertain the nature of such exhibitions of super- 
natural power. There is not the slightest evidence that 
any attempt was made to investigate the supposed 
miraculous occurrences, or to justify the inferences so 
freely drawn from them, nor is there any reason to 
believe that the witnesses possessed in any considerable 
degree the fulness of knowledge and sobriety of judgment 
requisite for the purpose. No miracle has yet estab- 
lished its claim to the rank even of apparent reality, and 
all such phenomena must remain in the dim region of 
imagination. The test applied to the largest class of 
miracles, connected with demoniacal possession, discloses . 
the falsity of all miraculous pretension. 

There is no uncertainty as to the origin of belief in 
supernatural interference with nature. The assertion 
that spurious miracles have sprung up round a few 
instances of genuine miraculous power has not a single 
‘valid ‘argument to support it. History clearly demon- 
strates that wherever ignorance and superstition have 
prevailed every obscure oceurrence has been attributed 
to supernatural agency, and it is freely acknowledged 
that, under their influence, inexplicable and miraculous 


480 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


are convertible terms. On the other hand, in proportion 
as knowledge of natural laws has increased, the theory. 
of supernatural interference with the order of nature has 
been dispelled, and miracles have ceased. The effect of 
science, however, is not limited to the present and 
future, but its action is equally retrospective, and phe- 
homena which were once ignorantly isolated from the 
great sequence of natural cause and effect, are now 
restored to their place in the unbroken order. Ignorance 
and superstition created miracles; knowledge has for 
ever annihilated them. 

Miracles, of the reality of which there is no evidence 
worthy of the name, are not only contradictory to com- 
plete induction, but even on the avowal of those who 
affirm them, they only cease to be incredible upon certain 
assumptions with regard to the Supreme Being which are 
equally opposed to Reason. These assumptions, it is not 
denied, are solely derived from the Revelation which 
miracles are intended to attest, and the whole argument, 
therefore, ends in the palpable absurdity of making the 
Revelation rest upon miracles which have nothing to 
rest upon themselves but the Revelation. The ante- 
cedent assumption of the Divine design of Revelation 
and of the necessity for it stands upon no firmer founda- 
tion, and it is emphatically excluded by the whole con- 
stitution of the order of nature, whose imperative 
principle is progressive development. Upon all grounds 
of Reason and experience the supposed miraculous evi- 
dence, by which alone we could be justified in believing 
in the reality of the Divine Revelation, must be pro- 
nounced mere human delusion, and the result thus 
attained is confirmed by every external consideration. 

When we turn from more general arguments to 
examine the documentary evidence for the reality of the 


CONCLUSIONS. 481 


supposed miraculous occurrences, and of the Divine 
Revelation which they accredit, we meet with the charac- 
teristics which might have been expected. We do not 
find any real trace even of the existence of our Gospels 
for a century and a half after the events they record. 
They are anonymous narratives, and there is no evidence 
of any value connecting these works with the writers to 
whom they are popularly attributed. On the contrary, 
the facts stated by Papias fully justify the conclusion 
that our first and second Synoptics cannot be the works 
said to have been composed by Matthew and Mark. The 
third Synoptic is an avowed compilation by one who was 
not an eye-witness of the occurrences narrated, and the 
identity of the writer cannot be established. As little 
was the supposed writer of the second Synoptic a personal 
witness of the scenes of his history. The author of the 
fourth Gospel is unknown, and no impartial critic can 
assert the historical character of his narrative. Apart 
from continual minor contradictions throughout all of 
these narratives, it is impossible to reconcile the markedly 
different representations of the fourth and of the Synoptic 
Gospels. They mutually destroy each other as evidence. 
These Gospels themselves do not pretend to be inspired 
histories, and they cannot upon any ground be regarded 
as more than mere human compositions. As evidence 
for miracles and the reality of Divine Revelation they 
have no weight, being merely narratives, written long 
after the events recorded, by unknown persons who were 
neither eye-witnesses of the supposed miraculous occur- 
rences, nor hearers of the statements they profess to 
report. Contemporary testimony of such character 
would have possessed little force against the opposing 
weight of complete induction, but still smaller is the 


evidential value of such narratives as these, which are 
VOL, Ii. Ir 


482 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


largely or wholly based upon pious tradition, and which 
could not, in that superstitious age, have excluded the 
mythical elements which are so palpably incorporated in 
our Gospels. The world is full of illustrations of the 
rapid growth of legendary matter, and it would indeed 
have been little short of miraculous had these narratives 
been exceptions to the universal rule, written as they 
were under the strongest religious excitement at a time 
“when almost every ordinary incident became a 
miracle,” and in that “ mythic period in which reality 
melted into fable, and invention unconsciously trespassed 
on the province of history.” Tradition, in other forms, 
to which appeal is sometimes made, is still more worth- 
less, and, opposed to the result of universal experience, 
it is unworthy of a moment’s consideration. 

The miraculous evidence upon which alone, it is ad- 
mitted, we could be justified in believing its astounding 
doctrines being thus nugatory, the claims.of Christianity 
to be considered a Divine Revelation must necessarily be 
disallowed, and its supernatural elements, which are, in 
fact, the very substance of the system, inevitably sharing 
the same fate as the supposed miraculous evidence, must, 
therefore, be rejected as incredible and opposed to Reason 
and complete induction. 

It must be remembered that the claim to direct Divine 
origin, so far from being peculiar to Christianity, has 
been equally advanced by all the great systems of Reli- 
gion which have ever been promulgated and taken root 
in the world. In this, as in all other respects, Chris- 
tianity can be fitly classified, and assigned its place in 
natural sequence with other historical creeds, by the 
rapidly maturing Science of Religion. The character of 
Divine Revelation, in any supernatural sense, cannot be 
accorded to any of the Religions which have succes- 


CONCLUSIONS. 483 


sively laid claim to it; and whilst in one sense Chris- 
tianity is the most divine. of all human systems, it must 
be remarked that this is solely due to its noble morality, 
and not to its supernatural dogmas, which are not more 
original than the evidence by which they are supposed 
to be attested. The so-called Divine Revelation in fact 
is both in conception and details supremely anthropo- 
morphic. There is not one of its dogmas which does 
not find parallels in antecedent religions, and although 
the same may be said of its isolated precepts, it is, not- 
withstanding, in the completeness and perfection of its 
elevated morality that its only true and undeniable 
originality consists. 

Christianity takes a higher position when recognized 
to be the most perfect development of human morality 
than it could do as an abortive pretendent to divine 
honours. There is little indeed in its history and actual 
achievements to support the claim made on its behalf to 
the character of a scheme Divinely revealed for the salva- 
tion of the human race. Primarily communicated to a fa- 
voured nation, which almost unanimously rejected it then, 
and whose descendants still continue almost unanimously 
to confirm the original judgment, it has not, after up- 
wards of 1800 years, obtained even the nominal adherence 
of more than a third of the human race.’ Sdkya 


1 The different creeds may be roughly estimated as follows :— 


Christians ᾿ P . 840 millions, 

Other creeds ° ; ΠΑ. Ὁ ΤῊΣ Ἐν’ 
The last item is composed as follows :— 

Mahomedans , ° ‘ . 124 millions. 

Buddhists . ὦ . Poet || ΟΡΝΑ 

Brahmins 7 . ae ESOR |: 5, 

Other Pagans . . aie 100 3 sy 


Jews ; ᾿ P . 6 & 
Of, A. K. Johnston, Physical Atlas, 1856, Chart xxxiv., p. 111. 
ris 


484 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


Muni, a teacher only second in nobility of character to 
Jesus, who, like him, proclaimed a system of elevated 
morality, has even now almost as many followers, 
although his missionaries have never penetrated the 
West, and his creed is much less adapted for general 
acceptance. Such results attained by a Religion specially 
claiming the character of direct Divine Revelation cannot 
be called supernatural, although they may not be dispro- 
portionate for a human system of pure spiritual morality. 

In considering the actual position of Christianity, 
however, and what it may have done for the world as a 
religious system, its supernatural dogmas become a mere 
question of detail. The Divine origin attributed to its 
founder, the miraculous circumstances represented as 
attending his birth and subsequent career, as well as the 
hope of reward in a future life, and the fear of eternal 
punishment, undoubtedly exercised a certain influence 
in ages of darkness and superstition, to which the lofty 
morality of Jesus might have appealed in vain, and, 
therefore, they may have contributed towards the propa- 
gation of Christianity. The supernatural dogmas, how- 
ever, have no virtue in themselves. We shall not here 
inquire how much or how little of civilization in Europe 
has been due to the influence of Christianity, but we 
may assert that whatever beneficial effect has been pro- 
duced by it has been solely attributable to its morality. 
It is an undoubted fact that wherever, as in the Eastern 
Church, dogmatic theology. has been dominant, civi- 
lization has declined. Theological bigotry rapidly ex- 
tinguishes Christian virtues. But for the filtration of 
morality through doctrinal obstructions the dogmas of 
ecclesiastical Christianity would have produced little or 
nothing but evil for the world. They have been the 


CONCLUSIONS. 485 


fruitful source of “ hatred, malice, and all uncharitable- 
ness,’ and their propagation by sword and stake has 
ensanguined many a page of history. Whatever ser- 
vice the supernatural dogmas may have rendered in 
securing authority for the sublime Religion of Jesus 
in ages of barbarism incapable of understanding its 
elevated purity, their influence and utility can only 
be regarded as temporary. Their abandonment can 
have no prejudicial effect upon the power of Religion. 
No one who pretends to make the moral teaching of 
Jesus the rule of life merely from dogmatic obligation 
can have understood that morality at all, or penetrated 
beyond the mere letter of its precepts. On the other 
hand, weighted as Christian morality has been by super- 
natural dogmas, which are felt .to be incredible, doubt 
and hesitation with regard to these more or less paralyzes 
its practical authority. 

Even Bishop Butler acknowledges that the importance 
of Christianity primarily arises from its being a distinct 
declaration and institution of natural morality ; and he 
only accords to its supernatural dogmas’ a secondary rank. 
No one can have attentively studied the subject without 
being struck by the absence of any such dogmas from 
the earlier records of the teaching of Jesus. We shall 
probably never be able to determine now how far the 
great Teacher may, through his own speculations or mis- 
understood spiritual utterances, have originated the super- 
natural doctrines subsequently attributed to him, and by 
which his whole history and system soon became suffused. 
There can be little doubt that in great part the miracu- 
lous elements of Christianity are due to the profound 
and excited veneration of uninstructed and superstitious 


1 Analogy, part ii., ch. 1. 


486 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


ages for the elevated character of Jesus. The history of 
the world is not without instances of similar phenomena, 
but as a slight illustration of the tendency we may, in 
passing, merely point to the case of the excited and 
superstitious populace of Lystra, who with less reason are 
described as hailing Paul and Barnabas as gods. What- 
ever explanation may be given, however, it is undeniable 
that the earliest teaching of Jesus recorded in the Gospel 
which can be regarded in any degree as historical is pure 
morality almost, if not quite, free from theological 
dogmas. Morality was the essence of his system; theo- 
logy was an after-thought. It is to the followers of 
Jesus, and not to the Master himself, that we owe the 
supernatural elements so characteristic of the age and 
people. We may look in vain in the Synoptic Gospels 
for the doctrines elaborated in the Pauline Epistles and 
the Gospel of Ephesus. The great transformation of 
Christianity was thus effected by men who had never 
seen Jesus, and who were only acquainted with his teach- 
ing when already transmuted by tradition. The fervid 
imagination of the East constructed Christian theology. 
It is not difficult to follow the gradual development of 
the creeds of the Church, and it is certainly most instruc- 
tive to observe the progressive boldness with which its 
dogmas were expanded by pious enthusiasm. The New 
Testament alone represents several stages of dogmatic 
evolution. Before his first followers had passed away, 
intricate systems of dogma and mysticism began to 
prevail. The disciples who had so often misunderstood 
the teaching of Jesus during his life, piously distorted 
it after his death. His simple lessons of meekness and 
humility were soon forgotten. With lamentable rapidity 
the elaboraté structure of ecclesiastical Christianity, 


CONCLUSIONS. 487 


following stereotyped lines of human superstition, and 
deeply coloured by Alexandrian philosophy, displaced 
the simple morality of Jesus. Doctrinal controversy, 
which commenced amongst the very apostles, has ever 
since divided the unity of the Christian body. The per- 
verted ingenuity of successive generations of Churchmen 
has filled the world with theological quibbles which 
have naturally enough culminated of late in doctrines 
of Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility. 

It must be admitted that Christian ethics were not in 
their details either new or original. The precepts which 
distinguish the system may be found separately in early 
religions, in ancient philosophies, and in the utterances 
of the great poets and seers of Israel. The teaching of 
Jesus, however, carried morality to the sublimest point 
attained, or even attainable, by humanity. The influence 
of his spiritual religion has been rendered doubly great 
by the unparalleled purity and elevation of his own 
character. Surpassing in his sublime simplicity and 
earnestness the moral grandeur of Sdkya Muni, and 
putting to the blush the sometimes sullied, though gene- 
rally admirable, teaching of Socrates and Plato, and the 
whole round of Greek philosophers, he presented the 
rare spectacle of a life, so far as we can estimate it, 
uniformly noble and consistent with his own lofty prin- 
ciples, so that the “imitation of Christ” has become 
almost the final word in the preaching of his religion, 
and must continue to be one of the most powerful 
elements of its permanence. His system might not be 
new, but it was in a high sense the perfect development 
of natural morality, and it was final in this respect 
amongst others, that, superseding codes of law and 
elaborate rules of life, it confined itself to two funda- 


488 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


mental principles: Love to God and love to man. 
Whilst all previous systems had merely sought to purify 
the stream, it demanded the purification of the fountain. 
It placed the evil thought on a par with the evil action. 
Such morality, based upon the intelligent and earnest 
acceptance of Divine Law, and perfect recognition of the 
brotherhood of man, is the highest conceivable by 
humanity, and although its power and influence must 
augment with the increase of enlightenment, it is itself 
beyond development, consisting as it does of principles 
unlimited in their range, and inexhaustible in their 
application. Its perfect realization is that true spiritual 
Nirvana which Saékya Muni less clearly conceived, and 
obscured with Oriental mysticism: extinction of rebel- 
lious personal opposition to Divine order, and the attain- 
ment of perfect harmony with the will of God. 

Such a system can well afford to abandon claims to a 
supernatural character which have been raised for it in 
ages of superstitious ignorance, but which now do it but 
little honour, and to purge itself of dogmas devised 
by pious fanaticism against which reason and morality 
revolt. It is obvious that such morality must be em- 
braced for its own excellence alone. It requires no mi- 
raculous evidence, and it is independent of supernatural 
dogma. We cannot in any high sense receive it at all 
except for its own sake, with earnest appreciation of its 
truth, and love of its perfect principles; and any argu- 
ment that Christian Morality would not possess authority 
and influence apart from Christian Theology is degrading 
to the very religion it pretends to uphold. No practice 
of Christian ethics for any ulterior object whatever can 
be more than mere formality. Mosaism might be content 
with observance of Law secured by a promise of length 





CONCLUSIONS. 489 


of days in the land, or a threat of death to the offender, 
but the great Teacher demanded holiness for itself alone. 
The morality of Jesus lays absolute claim to the whole 
heart and mind, and they cannot be bribed by hopes of 
heaven, or coerced by fears of hell. The purity of heart 
which alone “sees God” is not dependent on views of 
the Trinity, or belief in a miraculous birth and incarna- 
tion. On the contrary, the importance which has been 
attached to Theology by the Christian Church, almost 
from its foundation, has been subversive of Christian 
morality. In surrendering its miraculous element, and its 
claims to supernatural origin, therefore, the religion of 
Jesus does not lose its virtue or the qualities which have 
made it a blessing to humanity. It sacrifices none of that 
elevated character which has distinguished and raised it 
above all human systems: it merely relinquishes a claim 
which it has shared with all antecedent religions, and | 
severs its connection with ignorant superstition. It is 
too divine in its morality to require the aid of miraculous 
attributes. No supernatural halo ean heighten its 
spiritual beauty, and no mysticism deepen its holiness. 
In its perfect simplicity it is sublime, and in its profound 
wisdom it is eternal. 

We gain infinitely more than we lose in abandoning 
belief in the reality of Divine Revelation. Whilst we 
retain pure and unimpaired the light of Christian 
Morality, we relinquish nothing but the debasing 
elements added to it by human superstition. We are 
no longer bound to believe a theology which outrages 
Reason and moral sense. We are freed from base an- 
thropomorphic views of God and his government of 
the universe; and from Jewish mythology we rise to 
higher conceptions of an infinitely wise and beneficent 


490 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


Being, hidden from our finite minds it is true in the 
impenetrable glory of Divinity, but whose Laws of 
wondrous comprehensiveness and perfection we ever 
perceive in operation around us. We are no longer dis- 
turbed by visions of fitful interference with the order of 
Nature, but we recognize that the Being who regulates 
the universe is without variableness or shadow of turn- 
ing. It is singular how little there is in the supposed 
Revelation of alleged information, however incredible, 
regarding that which is beyond the limits of human 
thought, but that little is of a character which reason 
declares to be the “wildest delusion.” Let no man 
whose belief in the reality of Divine Revelation may be 
destroyed by such inquiry complain that he has lost a 
precious possession, and that nothing is left but a blank. 
The Revelation not being a reality, that which he has 
lost was but an illusion, and that which is left is the 
Truth. If he be content with illusions he will speedily 
be consoled ; if he be a lover only of truth, instead of a 
blank he will recognize that the reality before him is 
full of great peace. 

If we know less than we have supposed of man’s 
destiny, we may at least rejoice that we are no longer 
compelled to believe that which is unworthy. The limits 
of thought once attained, we may well be unmoved in 
the assurance that, all that we do know of the regulation 
of the universe being so perfect and wise, all that we do 
not know must be equally so. Here enters the true and 
noble Faith, which is the child of Reason. If we have 
believed a system, the details of which must at one 
time or another have shocked the mind of every intel- 
ligent man, and believed it simply because it was 
supposed to be revealed, we may equally believe in 





————— ees 


CONCLUSIONS. 491 


the wisdom and goodness of what is not revealed. The 
mere act of communication to us is nothing: Faith 
in the perfect ordering of all things is independent of 
revelation. : 

The argument so often employed by theologians that 
Divine Revelation is necessary for man, and that. certain 
views contained in that Revelation are required by our 
moral consciousness, is purely imaginary and derived 
from the Revelation which it seeks to maintain. The 
only thing absolutely necessary for man is Truth; and 
to that, and that alone, must our moral consciousness 
adapt itself. Reason and experience forbid the expec- 
tation that we can acquire any knowledge otherwise 
than through natural channels. To complain that we 
do not know all that we desire to know is foolish and 
unreasonable. It is tantamount to complaining that the 
mind of man is not differently constituted. All of 
which the human mind is capable we may, now or 
hereafter, know. The limits of the Knowable are not 
yet finally determined, but they alone are the bounds of 
thought, although even there the eye of Reason may 
glance into the distance beyond. To attain the full 
altitude of the Knowable, whatever that may be, should 
be our earnest aim, and more than this is not for 
humanity. We might as well expect to be super- 
naturally nourished as supernaturally informed. It is as 
irrational to expect or demand knowledge unattainable 
naturally by man’s intellect as it is for a child to ery for 
the moon. We may be certain that information which 
is beyond the ultimate reach of Reason is as unnecessary 
as it is inaccessible. Man knows, or may know, all that 
man requires to know. To deny this is to -deny the 
perfection of the Laws which regulate the Universe. 


492 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 


The necessity of Divine Revelation is a pure theological 
figment utterly opposed to Reason. 

Escaping from it we exchange a Jewish anthropomor- 
phic Divinity made after our image, for an omnipresent 
God under whose beneficent government we know that 
all that is consistent with wise and omnipotent Law 
is prospered and brought to perfection, and all that is 
opposed to Divine order is mercifully frustrated and 
brought to naught. The man who is truly inspired 
by the morality of Jesus and penetrated by that love 
of God and of man which is its living principle, 
cheerfully ratifies the fiat which thus maintains the 
order of Nature, and recognizes its ultimate transcen- 
dence and good, for by virtue of that noble morality 
we cease to be mere units seeking only individual or 
selfish advantage. It is manifestly our first duty, as it 
should be our supremest pleasure, to apprehend as clearly 
as we may the laws by which the Supreme Being 
governs the Universe, and to bring ourselves and our 
actions into reverent harmony with them, conforming 
ourselves to their teaching, and learning wisdom from 
their decrees. Thus making the Divine Will our will we 
shall recognize in the highest sense that God is ever with 
us, that his good providence controls our slightest actions ; _ 
that we are not the sport of Satanic malice nor the victims 
of fitful caprice, but are eternally cared for and governed 
by an omnipresent immutable power for which nothing is 
-too great, nothing too insignificant, and in whose Divine 
order a fitting place is found for the lowest as well 
as the highest in the palpitating life of the Universe. 








; INDEX. 


------Φ.------- 


Acta Pinatt, see Nicodemus, Gospel of. 

Enon near Salim, ii, 420, 

Agbarus, Prince of Edessa, Letter of 
Jesus to, 1. 264 ἢ, 

Agrippa Castor, ii, 41, 43, 45. 

Alexandrians, Epistle to the, ii. 240 f. 

Alexandrinus, Codex, i. 215, 217 £., 248, 
439; ii, 26 note 3. 

Alogi, ii. 476. 

Alpiel, Angel, i. 108. 

Ambrose, St., miracles of, i. 170, 

Amulets, Jewish, i. 116. 

Ammonius of Alexandria, ii. 161, 162. 

Anabaptists, i. 476. 

Anacletus, Bishop of Rome, i. 218. 

Andrew of Czsarea, Apocalypse con- 
sidered by Papias to be 8 ti 1; 
488 ἢ; ii. 335. 

Anpiel, Angel, i i. 108, 

Anthony, St., Miracles of, i. 167 δὲ 

Antichrist, ii. 268 ff. 

Antipodes, i. 136 f. 

Antithesis, Marcion’s work, ii. 84, 88, 
93, 94, 105 ἢ, 

Apocalypse of John, i. 296, 299 ; ii. 167, 
170, 241, 273, 305 f., 315, 335 f. 
Writer of, could not be author of 
Gospel, 389 ff; external evidence 
that Apostle John wrote, 392 ff. ; 
Dionysius of Alex. the first who 
doubted it, 394; his reasons purely 
dogmatic, 394 f. ; date of, 395 ; writer 
calls himself John, 396; was he the 
Apostle? 396 f.; Ewald’s argument 
that he was not, 397 ff.; glorification 
of the Twelve, 398 f.; an allegory, 

398 ff. ; justified by words of Jesus, 
399 f.; no modesty for historian to 
withhold his name, 400 f. ; compared 
with author of Gospel, 401 f.; no in- 
ternal evidence opposes ascription to 
Apostle, 402; character of son of 
Zebedee, 403 f.; agrees with indica- 
tions in Apocalypse, 406 ff.; Judaistic 
Christianity and opposition to Paul, 
407 ff. ; external and internal evidence 
agrees in ascribing it to Apostle, 408 ἢ, 

Apocryphal works, quoted as Holy 
Scripture, 1.103, 238 ἢ, 240, 255, 





256, 257, 273, 458; ii. 167 ff, 198 ἢ 
read in churches, i. 295 ἢ, ; ii, 167 ἢ, 
171, 

Apollinaris, Claudius, date of, ii, 185 f. ; 
his works, 186 ; Fragment on Paschal 
Controversy ascribed to him, 186 f. ; 
reasons for considering this spurious, 
187 ff. 

Apollonius of Ephesus, ii. 393. 

Apollos, ii. 38, 282 note 1. 

Apostles, Gospel according to the, i 
293 £., 427. 

Aquila’s version of Ο, T., ii. 212, 305, 

Aquinas, St. Thomas, disease and tem- 
pests direct work of Devil, i. 131. 

Aristion, i, 445, 446, 

Arneth, ii. 84. 

Arnold, Dr., Miracles objects of faith, i, 
18, We must judge a revelation by 
its substance, not by its evidence, 18 ; 
miracles common to God and to the 
Devil, 18. 

Asa, Demon, i. 118. 

Asael, Demon, i. 118, 

Asaph, ii, 10 ἢ 

Ashbeél, a fallen angel, i. 103, 

Asmodeus, Demon, i. 102, 108, 112 note 
1,114 f., 118. 

Athanasius, St., accused of sorcery, i. 
147; Miracles of St. Anthony, 167 ff ; 
Ep. of Ignatius, 262; mentions Cle- 
mentines, ii. 41. 

Athenagoras, angelic agency in natural 
phenomena, i. 122f.; on demons, 
123 ; account of him, ii. 191 ; works 
and date, 191 f.; alleged quotations 
from our Gospels, 192 ff. ; quotation 
of apocryphal work, 198 f. ; on inspi- 
ration Ὁ, T., 199 f.; alleged reference 
to Fourth Gospel, 379 f.; his Logos 
doctrine, 379 1; uncanonical quota- 
tion in mouth of Logos, 380, 

Atterbury, Bishop ; necessity of miracu- 
lous evidence, i. 5; the truths requir- 
ingsuch attestation beyond Reason, 22, 

Augustine, St., on demons, i. 135; angels 
and demons assume bodies, 145; IJn- 
cubi and Succubi, 135, and notes 4, 
δ; Dusii, 135; Antipodes, 136; on 


494 INDEX. 


miracles, 170 ff; miracles related 
by, 170 ff. ; his arguments regarding, 
and guarantee of, miracles reported, 
180 ff; on Luke 11. 22, 323; on 
Mark, 456 note 1 ; on Matthew, 472. 
Axionicus, ii. 70, 222, 223. 
Azael, a fallen angel, i. 103 note 4, 104. 


BarcaBsas, ii. 45. 

Barcoph, ii. 45. 

Bardesanes, ii. 70, 222, 223. 

Barnabas, Epistle of ; clean and unclean 
beasts, i. 138 ; superstition r ing 
the hare, 138 ; the hyena, 138 ; author 
of, 232 f. ; early references to, 233; 
date of, 234 ff. ; found in Cod. Sinai- 


ticus, 235 f.; supposed quotation of | 


Matt. xxii, 14; as H. S, 286 f1; 
Orelli’s explanation, 240; quotations 
compared with Synoptic Gospels and 
book of Ezra, 249 ff; evidence for 
Fourth Gospel—type of brazen ser- 
pent, ii 251 ff; on the two ways, 
318. 
Barnabas, Gospel according to, i 233, 
293. 
Baronius, ii. 201 note 3, 211. 
Bartholomew, Apostle, i. 471. 
Basilides, date and writings, ii. 41 ff. ; 
made use of Apocryphal Gospel, 42 ff ; 
claimed to have received his know- 
ledge from Glaucias, “interpreter of 
Peter,” 44; quoted apocryphal works, 
45 £.; nature of his “ Gospel,” 42 f.; 
45, 46 £; alleged references to our 
, 48 ff; alleged reference to 
Fourth Gospel, 371. 
Baur, F. C., on Clementines, ii 4; on 
Marcion’s Gospel, 85, 86, 114. 
Bertholdt, ii. 83. 
Bethabara, ii. 419. 
Bethany, ii. 419. 
Bethesda, Pool of, ii. 420 £ 
Bezz, Codex (D), i 355 note 3, 356 
note 3, 357 note 3, 393, 439; ii 429 
note 1. 
Bleek, i. 458 note 2. 
Bollandist Collection of Lives of Saints, 
i. 187. 
Bolten, ii. 83. 
Bretschneider, i. 240. 
Browne, Sir Thomas, on witches, i. 148. 
Buckle, relation between ignorance and 
superstition, i 149, 204 note 1. 
Bunsen, i. 439 note ; ii. 243. 
Burton, Anatomy of Melancholy on In- 
cubi and Succubi, i. 136 note 1. 
Butler, Miracles proof of Divine Reve- 
_ lation, i 4; Christianity beyond 
reason, 23 n. 2; Christianity primarily 
important as ‘declaration ee natural 
morality,aig-4 85, 
a <2 — 


= 





CzsaReEa PHILiprt, Miracles at, i. 165. 

Caiaphas, high priest, ii, 416 ff 

Cajetan, i. 476. 

Calvin, on Eps. of Ignatius, i 259 f. ; 
our Gospel of Matt. shows no trace of 
Hebrew original, 476. 

Carpocrates, i. 421. 


| Celsus, on demons, i. 128 £. ; on Phoenix ; 


138; Jesus accused of magic, 325; 
his wink against Christians, ii. 227, 
231 note 2; ddte of Celsus, 228 ff. ; 
was he the Epicurean, 229 f£ ; he 
was a Neo-Platonist, 234 ff. ; mentions 
only Book of Enoch and Sibylline 
books, 236; accusation against Chris- 
tians of altering Gospel, 382 f. 

Centuriators, Magdeburg, on Eps. of Ig- 
natius, i 259. 

Cerdo, ii. 214, 216. 

Cerinthus, i. 421; ii. 394, 406. 

Cham, ii. 45 note 3. 

Charms, Jewish, i. 116. 

Christianity, supernatural or untenable, 
i. 1ff.; claim to be Divine Revelation ἡ 
not original, 2; character of earlier 
and later ages of, 198 ff; affirmed 
to be believed upon miraculous evi- 
dence by the thinking and educated, 
205 f.; fallacy of the argument, 
206 f. ; comparative position of Chris- 
tianity, ii. 483; takes a higher place 
as perfect development of morality 
than as pretendent to be a super- 
natural religion, 483 f.; the infiu- 
ence of supernatural dogmas im ex- 
tending Christianity temporarily, 
484 ff.; its primary importance as 
declaration of morality, 485; super- 
natural elements introduced by fol- 
lowers and not by Jesus, 485 ἢ; 
Christian ethics not new or original, 
486 5. : but teaching of Jesus carried 
morality to highest point attainable 
by man, 486 ff.; his religion is in- 
dependent of supernatural d 
487 f.; the effect of Christianity on 
civilization almost solely due to its 
morality, 489 f.; Christian Theology 
where dominant has led to debase- 
ment of morals, 489 f.; in surrender- 
ing miraculous elements the religion 
of Jesus does not lose any ofits virtue, 
491; we gain more than we lose by 
abandoning theory of Divine Revela- 
tion, 491 ff. 

Chrysostom, on angels, 1, 128, place 
where Mark was written, 452 note 1 ; 
on Matthew, 472. 

Claromontanus, Codex, i. 295 note 9. 

Claudius, Apollinaris, see Apollinaris. 

Clement of Alexandria, quotes Xeno- 
phanes, i. 76 note 5; on angels, 122; 
angelic agency in Nature, 122; Greeks 





INDEX. 495 


plagiarize miracles from Bible, 122; 
the Son gave philosophy to Greeks 
by inferior angels, 122 ; tempests, &c., 
produced by evil angels, 131; calls 
Roman Clement ‘‘ Apostle,” 217; 
Epistle of Barnabas, 232 ; calls author 
** Apostle Barnabas,” 232; variation 
from Matt. v. 16, 353 note 3; variation 
from Matt. v. 37, 354 note 1; varia- 
tion from Luke xii. 48, 357 note 4; 
variation from Matt. xi, 27, 408f.; 
quotes Gospel of Hebrews, 422; on 
composition of Mark, 449, 451; 
used Κήρυγμα Πέτρου, 458, ii. 227; 
references to Basilides and followers, 
ii. 48; quotations from Valentinus, 
56, 62 f.; variation from Matt. xix. 
17, 65; Valentinus professed to have 
traditions from Apostles, 75; alleged 
quotation of Tatian, 151 f.; does 
not mention Tatian’s Diatessaron, 155; 
quotes Sibylline books and Book of 
Hystaspes as inspired, 168 ; quotation 
from Apocryphal book regarding 
Paul, 168 note 5; does not mention 
work on Passover by Apollinaris, 189 ; 
mentions Heracleon, 214, 226; date 
of Stromata, 226; Logos doctrine 
in Κήρυγμα Πέτρου, 298 note 1; on 
a passage from Barnabas, 318; on 
- Ps. exviii. 19 f., 318; Apocalypse, 
394, 
Clementine Homilies, quote Apocryphal 
work, i. 231; combination similar 
to a passage in Justin, 350 note 4; 
varied quotations agreeing with Jus- 
tin, 354 note 1, 356 note 1, 376, 
377 note, 410, 412, 413, 416, ii. 
312; supposed to use Gospel of 
Hebrews, 426; variation from Luke 
xxiii, 34, 444 note 1; analogy of, 
with work of Mark, described in 
Papias, 463 f. ; date and character, ii. 
1 ff£; Ebionitic, 2 f.; their nature, 
3; only internal evidence as to date 
and origin, 3 ff. ; quotations generally 
put into mouth of Peter, 6 ; number 
of evangelical quotations, 6; theories 
as to source of the quotations, 7 f.; 
comparison of quotations with Synop- 
tics, 8 ff. ; quotation from Apocryphal 
Gospel, 15, 27, 30 ff. ; Codex Utto- 
bonianus, 26; quotations with per- 
sistent variation, 27 ff.; on true and 
false Scriptures, 30 f.; result of exa- 
mination of quotations’ in, 32 f.; no 
trace of N. T. Canon, 33 f.; animosity 
against Apostle Paul, 34 ff, 353 ἢ, ; 
Paul attacked under disguise of 
Simon the Magician, 34 ff, 353 ἢ; 
variation from Matt. xix. 17, 65; 
variation from Matt. vii. 13 f., 319; 
variation Deut. xxx. 15, 319 note 1; 





alleged references to Fourth Gospel, 
336. ff.; uncanonical quotations, 337 
ff., 341 ; alleged reference to John ix. 
1—3, 341 ff. ; the fall denied in, $41 f.; 
deny that Moses wrote the Penta- 
teuch, 341 note 1; on evil, 342 f£.; 
alleged reference not to Fourth Gos- 
pel, 344 ἢ, ; dogmatic teaching totally 
different from Fourth Gospel, 346 ff. ; 
identity of Judaism and Christianity 
maintained, 346 ff. ; denied in Gospel, 
348 f.; Monotheism maintained as 
opposed to the divinity of Christ, 
349 f. ; does not know Logos doctrine, 
849 f.; Σοφία appeared in Adam 
and others before Jesus, 350 ff. ; total 
absence of Johannine dogmas, 351 f. ; 
Peter, the chief of the Apostles, 352 ἢ ; 
the career of Jesus limited to one 
year, 353 f. 

Clementine Recognitions, on the giants, 
i. 123 note 3; on angels and demons, 
132; Jesus accused of magic, 324 ἢ, ; 
variation from Matt. xi. 27, 410; 
passage compared with Justin, 414 f. ; 
date and character, ii. 1 ff. ; Ebionitic, 
2 f.; only known through a Latin 
version, 3. 

Clement of Rome, on Phoenix, i. 187; 
antipodes, 137 note 1 ; Kpistle to 
Corinthians, 215 ff.; 2nd Epistle 
spurious, 215 ἢ ; identity of author, 
216 f.; called ‘‘ Apostle,” 217; 
Epistle to Hebrews ascribed to him, 
217; Acts of Apostles ascribed to 
him, 217; Epistle to Corinthians 
read in Churches, 217; amongst 
Apocrypha in Stichometry of Nice- 
phorus, 218; date, 218 ff.; Epistle 
mentioned by Dionysius of Corinth, 
218; by Hegesippus, 218; order of 
succession to Bishopric of Rome, 218; 
mentions Paul's Epistle to Corinthians, 
221, 222; supposed references to 
Gospels, 223 ff. ; quotes Apocryphal 
Gospels, 231 ff; no use of our Gos- 
pels, 231 ff; passage in Epistle si- 
milar to one in Ep. of Polycarp, 279; 
Epistle read in Churches, 295 ; quota- 
tion 2nd Epistle to Corinthians, com- 
pared with Justin, 378; passage of 
Epistle of Clement, compared with 
Justin, 414; spurious works ascribed 
to, ii, 1 ff; Epistle to Diognetus 
erroneously ascribed to him, 88; no 
evidence for Fourth Gospel, 251. 

Colarbasus, ii, 217 ff. 

Constitutions, the Apostolic, i. 138, 854 
note 1, 414. 

Coponius, i, 308. 

Corinthians, 3rd Fpistle to the, ii. 169. 

Corrodi, ii. 83. 

Cotelerius, ii. 25 note 4. 


496 


~ Credner, on Stichometry of Nicephorus, 


i, 218; Justin’s Memoirs, 290, 294 
note 6; birth of Jesus in a cave, 312 
note 4; use of lights at Baptism, 
323 ; on a supposed quotation by Jus- 
tin of Matt. xvii. 13, 396 ff.; on 
statements of Fathers regarding Matt. 
xiii. 35, ii. 11 note 3; on quotations 
in Clementines, 16 f. ; Marcion’s Gos- 
pel, 84; on Tatian’s Diatessaron, 159; 
on emendation Sept. version, 306; on 
descent of same spirit from Adam 
to Jesus in Clemeritines, 351 note 
1; on supernatural birth in Clemen- 
tines, 351 note 6; on e in 
Canon of Muratori, 384 note 1; dis- 
tinction in Canon of Muratori be- 
tween John the disciple and John the 
apostle, 385 ἢ ; on fourth Gospel and 
its authorship, 412 ff; on Sychar, 
John iv. 5,421 f. 

Crescens, Cynic, i. 283; ii, 148. 

Cross, Inscription on, in Gospels, ii. 
457. 

Cureton, Dr., Syriac Epistles of Igna- 
tius, i. 259 ff.; Syriac fragments 
ascribed to Melito of Sardis, ii. 180 ff, 
183 ἢ 

Cyprian, of Carthage, on demons, i. 
124; demoniacal origin of disease, 
124; accused of magic, 147 ; miracles 
in his day, 164. 

Cyrenius, i. 285, 306 ff. 

Cyril, of Jerusalem, quotes story of 
Phenix, i. 138; on Gospel of 
Matthew, 472. 


DaLLaus, i. 260, 276. 

Death, Angels of, i. 108. 

Deity, Argument of miracles begins 
and ends with assumption of Per- 
sonal, i. 62 ff.; assumption of Per- 
sonal, 63 ff. 

Deliel, Angel, i. 108. 

Delitzsch, on quotations by Justin from 
the Memoirs, i. 374 note 2, 379 
note 1; finds traces of Gospel of 
Hebrews in Talmud, 421; on Sychar, 
416. 

Demoniacs of Gadarenes, i. 142 ἢ. 

Demonology, of Book of Tobit, i. 102; 
of Book of Enoch, 103 ff.; of Jews 
at time of Jesus, 111 ff.; of Fathers, 
121 ff. 

Demons, heathen gods considered by 
Jews to be, i. 100 f., 124, 134, and by 
N. T. writers, 101; Book of Tobit 
on, 102 ; Book of Enoch on, 103 ff ; 
belief in, at time of Jesus, 111 ff ; 
number of, 111; work and habits, 
111 ff.; how to see them, 112; have 
cock’s feet, 112; possession by, 114 ff. ; 








INDEX. 


Josephus on, 120; Justin Martyr on, 
121 £, 158; Theophilus of Antioch 
on, 122, 159; Athenagoras on, 123; 
Tatian on, 123 ἢ ; Cyprian of Car- 
thage on, 124; Tertullian on, 124 ff. ; 
Origen on, 1 27 ff., Celsus on, 128 f. ; 
131; Jerome on, 128; St. Thomas 
Aquinas on, 131; Clementine Re- 
cognitions on, 131; Lactantius on, 
132 ff.; Eusebius on, 134 f.; St. Au- 
gustine on, 135; belief in, dispelled, 
149 ff 

Diatessaron, sce Tatian. 

Diognetus, Epistle to, i: 219; author- 
ship and date, ii 38 ff.; integrity, 
38 £.; does not quote Synoptics, 40 ; 
alleged references to Fourth Gospel, 
354 ff.; recalls passages in Philo, 
358 note 1; this Epistle a plagiarism 
of Pauline Epistles, 358 ff. ; compa- 
rison with 2nd Epistle to Corinthians, 
359 f.; Logos doctrine of Epistle 
different from that of the Gospel, 

_ 864 f£; of no value as evidence for 
Fourth Gospel, 370 £. 

Dionysius, of Alexandria, on tomb of 
two Johns at Ephesus, i. 447; on 
Gospel and Apocalypse of John ii. 
389 ff., 395. 

Dionysius, Bar-Salibi, ii. 161. 

Dionysius, of Corinth, mentions Clement 
of Rome, i. 218; Epistle of Clement 
read in Churches, 295; Epistle of 
Soter read in Churches, 295 ; account 
of him, ii. 163 ff. ; Epistle to Soter, 
163; date, 163; expressions claimed 
as evidence for Gospels, 164 ff. ; 
what were the ‘‘ Scriptures of the 
Lord ?” 165 ff. ; alleged references to 
Matthew and the Apocalypse, 170 ff. ; 
uncanonical works read in Churches, 
171 f. 

Doceta, ii. 53, 269. 

Dodwell, ii. 191. 

Donaldson, Dr., on Epistle to Diognetus, 
ii. 89 note 3; on Tatian’s Diates- 
saron, 157; Diatessaron may have 
been confounded with Gospel of 
Hebrews, by Theodoret, 158; we 
could not identify it by our actual 
information concerning it, 161; on 
** Scriptures of the Lord,” referred to 
by Dionysius of Corinth, 165 ; on his 
‘Srule of truth,’ 171; fragment 
ascribed to Melito, spurious, 190 
note 4; on Athenagoras, 198; on 
expression of Hegesippus, “‘ the door 
of Jesus,” 319 note 3; passage by 
Tatian, 375 note 1. 

Dreams, Rules in Talmud regarding, 
1, 116; fasts to obtain good, 116. 

Dressel, Clementines, ii. 1, 26, 336, 
340. 


INDEX. 497 


Duncker, ii. 71. 
Dusii, St. Augustine on, i. 135, 


EBED-JESU, ii. 162. 

Ebionites, Gospel of the, i. 296, 321, 
420 f£., 423; ii. 82. 

Egyptians, Gospel according to the, i. 
378, 420 ἢ; 11. 43, 

Eichhorn, ii. 83. 

Eldad and Modat, Prophecy of, i. 257. 

Elias, Revelation of, i. 240, 435, 441. 

Eleutherus, Bishop of Rome, i. 429, 
432; 11, 200, 210, 212, 213. 

Encratites, ii. 148, 162. 

Enoch, Book of, quoted by Epistle of 
Jude, i. 103 ; considered inspired by 
Fathers, 103; Tertullian on, 103 f.; 
Angelology and Demonology of, 103 ; 
quoted by Epistle of Barnabas, 237 ; 
referred to by Celsus, ii. 236. 

Ephesians, Epistle to the, ii. 62, 72 f, 
240 ἢ, 


Ephrem, Syrus, ii. 161 f. 

Epiphanius, Epistle of Clement, i. 295 ; 
fire and voice at baptism of Jesus, 
from Gospel according to Hebrews, 
322; combination of passages similar 
to quotation in Justin, 350 note 4; 
variation from Matt. v. 37, 354 note 
1; variation from Matt. xi. 27, 404 f., 
408 ff. ; on Gospel of Hebrews, 423, 
472; on James as High Priest, 431 
note 2; on language of Gospel of 
Matthew, 472; alleged references of 
Basilides and his school to our Gos- 
pels, ii, 49 ἔν; variation from 
Matt. xix. 17 from Gospel of the Mar- 
cionites, 65; bitterness against Mar- 
cion, 89; charge of mutilating Luke, 
90 ff. ; his plan in attacking Marcion, 
92; had not Marcion’s Gospel before 
him while writing, 99 ff. ; reproaches 
Marcion with erasing passages from 
Luke not in that Gospel, 101; under- 
takes to refute Marcion out of his 
own Gospel, 109 f.; on Tatian’s 
Diatessaron, 158, 155 f.; fragment 
of Athenagoras, 192; Epistle to Flora 
of Ptolemus, 205 f., 381 ἢ, ; Theo- 
dotion’s version, O, T., 212; on Cerdo, 
214, 216; refers to Alogi, who reject 
fourth Gospel, 476. 

Erasmus, i. 476. 

Ernesti, ii. 319. 

Essenes, ii. 467. 

Eusebius, on demons, i. 134 f.; Greek 
gods demons, 134; demons introduced 
magic, 134; miracle of Natalius, 134 ; 
on statement of Irenzus regarding 
continuance miraculous gifts, 160 ; 
miracles related by, 164 ff.; on suc- 
cession to Bishopric, Clement of 


VOL, Il. 





Rome, 218 ; Epistle of Barnabas, 232 ; 
classes it amongst spurious books, 
233; Epistles of Ignatius, 261 f£; 
letter to Agbarus, 264 ἢ : Justin’s 
Apologies, 284; Apocryphal works 
read in Churches, 295; birth of Jesus 
in a cave, 312; classes Gospel of 
Hebrews amongst Antilegomena, 422 ; 
on Gospel of Hebrews, 423, 433 f. ; 
on Hegesippus, 429 f., 432 ff; on 
Proverbs, 433; on Papias, 447; on 
connection of Peter with Gospel of 
Mark, 450 f.; his depreciation of 
Papias, 469 f.; on Pantenus, 471 ; 
on composition and language of Gos- 
pel of Matthew, 472; use of Epistles 
of John and Peter by Papias, 483 f. ; 
Papias uses Gospel of Hebrews, 484 ; 
on Basilides, ii. 41; on Tatian’s 
Diatessaron, 154 f., 157; on Diony- 
sius of Corinth, 163 ff. ; on Melito of 
Sardis, 172 ff. ; list of Melito’s works, 
180 f.; on Claudius Apollinaris, 
185 ff. ; does not mention a work on 
Passover by Apollinaris, 189 ; passage 
from Hegesippus, 316 f. ; Paraphrase 
of Hegesippus, 319; plan of Euse- 
bius regarding references to books of 
N. T., 322 f.; reference to tradition 
regarding John not connected with 
Papias, 432 ; contradicts statement of 
Irenzeus regarding Papias, 327 note 1; 
his explanation of difference between 
fourth and Synoptic Gospels, 451 f. 


Evidence, miraculous, necessary to 


establish reality of Divine Revela- 
tion, i 1 ff. ; error of supposing that 
nothing supported by credible testi- 
mony should be disbelieved, 94 
evidence for the miraculous evidence 
required, 94. 


Ewald, his views on miracles, i. 28 f. 


note 1; Spruchsammlung, 243, 252, 
271, ii. 185, 150, 465; on Justin's 
Memoirs, birth in cave, i. 311; on 
Matt. xvii. 18, 397, 399; source of 
Synoptic Gospels, ii. 134 ff ; mythical 
character of first chapters of Luke, 
203; Apollos author of Epistle to 
Hebrews, 282 note 1; it transferred 
Philo’s doctrine of Logos to Chris- 
tianity, 282 note 1; Apollos im- 
pregnated. Paul with Logos doc- 
trine, 282 note 1, 298 note 1; 
Apocalypse and Gospel cannot have 
been written by same author, 391; 
against Apostolicorigin of Apocalypse, 
397 f.; on modesty of Apostle John, 
400, 440 ff; the fourth Gospel 
written by Presbyter, of Ephesus, at 
dictation of Apostle John, 413, 499 ἔ,, 
435 ff. ; speech of Caiaphas in purest 
Greek, 417 note 1; on Sychar, 421; 
KK 


498 INDEX. 


asserts John to have been relative of 
the High Priest, 423, 427; theories 
~ as to the composition of fourth Gospel 
to explain its peculiarities, 433 ff ; 
on chapter xxi., 435 ff. ; the Apostle’s 
share in the composition of the 
Gospel, 436 f.; on xix. 35, 436 ἢ ; 
assumed that John wrote first in 
narrow circle of friends, 433 f, 
438 ff.; explanation of anonymity on 
ground of “incomparable modesty ” 
examined, 440 ff.; assertion that 
ch. xxi. must have been written before 
Apostle’s death discussed, 442 ff ; 
on discourses in fourth Gospel, 465 f. ; 
his argument regarding John of Apo- 
calypse applied to Epistles, 471 f. 
Exorcism of Demons, i. 102 f£. ; forms 
of, by Solomon, 115 ff.; account of, 
by Josephus, 119; Rabbins powerful 
in, 119; Justin Martyr on, 119; 
potent root for, 120 ; Tatian on, 123 f.; 
Origen on, 127 ; Lactantius on, 133 f. ; 
asserted by Jesus, 152 f. ; continuance 
of power of, in Church, 153 ff. 
Experience, the argument from, i. 55 ff. ; 
Hume’s argument, 79 ff. 
Ezra, Book of, i, 231, 240 ff., 244 ff, 
253 ff., 255. 


Fasianus of Rome, miracle at his elec- 
tion, i. 165. 

Fanuel, Angel, i. 105. 

Farrar, Dr., Hulsean lecturer; mira- 
cles inseparable from Christianity, i. 
10; on Hume’s Argument from Ex- 
perience, 79; misconception of Mill's 
criticism on Hume, 79, ff.; cre- 
dibility of miracles a question of 
evidence, mainly depending on charac- 
ter of Gospels, 208, n. 1. 

Fathers, cosmical theories of, i. 121 ff. ; 
uncritical and credulous character of, 
460 ff., 472; 11. 91f£., 169; testimony 
of, regarding original language of 
Gospel of Matthew, 475 ff. 

Fian, Dr., burnt for sorcery, i. 148, 

Flavia Neapolis, i. 284. 


Gasrret, Angel, over serpents, Paradise, 
and the Cherubim, i. 104 ; over thun- 
der, fire, and ripening of fruit, 107 f.; 
taught Joseph the seventy languages 
of earth, 108 f.; over wars, 130. 

Gadreél, a fallen angel, seduced Eve, i. 
103; taught use of weapons of war, 
109, 

Galatians, Epistle to the, ii. 84, 36 note 
3, 37, 104, 405. 

Gelasius, Decretal of, condemns Gospel 
according to Barnabas, i. 233, 

Gerizim, Mount, ii. 411, 422, 


| Gervasius, St., miracles by relics of, i. 
169 ff. 

Gesta Pilati, see Nicodemus, Gospel 
according to. 

Gfrérer, Descent of Spirit from Adam 
to Jesus, in Clementines, ii. 351 note 
2; on fourth Gospel, 466 f. 

Giants, the offspring of fallen angels, 
103 £, 123, 127. 

Gieseler, ii. 83. 

— the ‘‘ interpreter of Peter,” ii. 

5. . 


Gnosticism, ii. 4, 41, 54, 60, 61. 

Gnostics, variation of, from Matt. xi. 27, 
i. 403 ff, ii. 29. 

Gospels, Apocryphal, number of in early 
Church, i. 212 ff., 292f. 

Gospel, the fourth, viii. 1—11, i. 421 
note 4, viii. 1—11 derived from 
Gospel of Hebrews, 484; alleged 
quotation by Valentinus, ii. 56f.; 
the external evidence for, 251 ff; 
Clement of Rome, 251; Epistle of 
Barnabas, 251 ff.; Pastor of Hermas, 
253 ff. ; Ignatian Epistles, 260 ff ; al- 
leged evidence in Epistle of Polycarp, 
267 ff. ; the Logos doctrine in Justin, 
272 ff. ; alleged references in Justin 
298 ff. ; alleged reference of Hegesip- 
pus to x. 7, 9, 316 ff; Papias, pre- 
sumptive evidence against, 321 ff, 
335 f.; alleged quotation by Presby- 
ters in work of Papias, 325ff., is a 
quotation by Irenzeus himself, 329 ff., 
and no evidence that the Presbyters 
are connected with Papias, 331 ff. ; 
alleged reference in Clementines to 
x. 9, 337 ff., to x. 27, 340, to ix. 1—3, 
341ff.; fundamental difference of 
doctrines of Clementines, 346 ff. ; 
alleged references to, in Epistle to 
Diognetus, 354 ff, of no value as 
evidence, 370; alleged references by 
Basilides, 370 f. ; alleged reference by 
Valentinus, 567, 68f., 371f.; Di- 
lemma of the argument from Heresi- 
archs, 372; alleged reference by Ta- 
tian, 374 ff. ; by Athenagoras, 379 f. ; 
by Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 
380 ἢ ; by Ptolemeeus, 381 f. ; alleged 
testimony of Celsus, 382 f. ; legendary 
account of its composition in Canon 
of Muratori, 383 ff. ; authorship and 
character of, 387 ff. ; the five Canoni- 
cal works attributed to John, 388; 
writer of Apocalypse cannot be 
writer of Gospel, 389 ff. ; character- 
istics of, 410f£; language of, 418 f.; 
theories to account for it, 413 ; author 
not a Jew, 414 ff; Logos doctrine, 
414 f.; attitude towards Jews, 415 f.; 
mistakes denoting foreigner, 417 ff., 
426 note 1; Annas and Caiaphas, 





ee ee 





INDEX, 


417. ; Pool of Siloam, 419 ; Bethany 
beyond Jordan, 419f.; Anon, 420; 
Pool of Bethesda, 420 ἢ, ; Sychar, a 
city of Samaria, 421f.; chiefly 
follows Septuagint version, 423; 
John, of fourth Gospel and of Synop- 
ties, 423 ff ; John, the beloved dis- 
ciple, limited to fourth Gospel, 
427 ff ; theories regarding chap. xxi., 
431 ff; theory of Ewald regarding 
composition of Gospel, 433 ff; on 
xix., 35 f., 436, 487, 489, 444f.; extra- 
ordinary phenomena of Gospel only 
explained by unsubstantiated as- 
sumption, 437 ff.; peculiarities of 
Gospel render hypothesis that it was 
written by the Apostle John incre- 
dible, 439 ff.; modesty of the sup- 
posed author examined, 440f£; 
Ewald’s argument that chap. xxi. 
was written before death of Apostle 
John, 433 ff, 442 f., refuted, 442 ff; 
author was not δὴ eye-witness, 
444ff.; fundamental difference be- 
tween Jesus of Synoptics and of, 
450 ff. ; historical differences, 450 ff. ; 
raising of Lazarus, 458 ff.; difference 
of teaching between Synoptics and, 
462 ff ; theories to account for sub- 
jectivity in discourses, 464 ff.; im- 
possibility of remembering long dis- 
courses so long, 465 ff.; explanations 
destroy historical character of, 467 ff.; 
discourses in, ideal, 468 ff. ; argument 
from Epistles, 471 ff. ; Paschal contro- 
versy, 472 ff. ; results, 474, 481 ἢ, 
Gospels, the Synoptic, i, 212 ff; sup- 
posed use of, by Clement of Rome, 
223 ff ; passages resembling parallels 
in, not necessarily from, 281 f.; ac- 
tual agreement of quotations from 
unnamed source no proof of use of, 
365 ff; theories as to the order of, 
ii. 137 ; results of examination regard- 
ing date and origin of, 248 ff; 


Justin’s description of system of Jesus 


applicable to, 315f.; contrast be- 
tween fourth Gospel and the Synop- 
tics, 450 ff; superiority of teaching 
of, over fourth Gospel, 470; result of 
examination of, 481 f. 

Grabe, ii. 226 note 6, 318,335 note. 

Gratz, ii. 84. 

Gregory, Bar-Hebrzeus, Bishop of Tagrit, 
ii, 162. 

Gregory, of Neo-Cesarea, Thaumatur- 
gus, miracles of, i. 165 ff. 

Gregory, of Nyssa, account of miracles, 
i. 165 ff. 

Griesbach, ii, 82. 


Hawkins, Dr., complains of those who 





499 


judge Revelation by substance, and 
not evidence, i. 18. 

Hahn, ii. 83, 84, 87, 96, 99, 101, 110 ff. 

Hale, Sir Thomas, on witches, i. 149. 

Ham, supposed to have (discovered 
magic, i. 132. 

Hamilton, Sir William, on Unknowable 
God, i. 73 note 1; class of phenomena 
requiring that cause called Deity con- 
fined to phenomena of mind, 75, 

Hare, superstition regarding the, i, 138, 

Hariel, Angel, i. 108. 

Hebrew, the original language of Mat- 
thew’s Gospel, i. 461 ff.; Paul repre- 
sents the Jesus of his vision speaking, 
474, note 6. 

Hebrews, Gospel according to, men- 
tioned earlier than our Gospels, i. 
213; quotation from, in Epistles of 
δρθνθην, 270, 272, 273, 332; Justin’s 

emoirs, 288; public reading, 296 ; 
birth of Jesus, 3138 ; fire and voice at 
baptism, 320 ff. ; Gospel of Egyptians 
a version of, 378; used by Hegesip- 
pus, 414, 421, 433 ff; Justin sup- 
posed to refer to, 439; relation be- 
tween it and Gospel of; Peter, 419 ff. 
various forms of, 420 ff; identity 
of, with Memoirs of the Apostles dis- 
cussed, 419 ff; quoted by Papias, 
421, 484; used by Clementines, 421 
used by Cerinthus and Carpocrates, 
421; Diatessaron of Tatian called, 
422; quoted by Clement of Alexan- 
dria, 422; used by Origen, 422; 
found in circulation by Theodoret, 
422; classed by Eusebius in second 
class, 422; also by Nicephorus, 422 f.; 
value attached to it by Ebionites, 
423; believed to be original of Matt., 
423; translated by Jerome, 423 ff. ; 
relation between it and Matthew, 
425 f.; its antiquity, 426f.; called 
Gospel according to the Apostles, 427; 
the two opening chapters, 436 ; Epi- 
phanius on, 472; supposed use by 
author of Clementines, ii. 7, 30 f.; 
supposed to be Gospel of Basilides, 
43; alleged to have formed part of 
Tatian’s Diatessaron, 152f.; was 
called Diatessaron, 153,185 f., 158 ff. 

Hebrews, Epistle to the, ascribed to 
Clement of Rome, i. 217, 233 ; Origen 
on, 290; in Muratorian Canon, ii. 
240 f.; Logos doctrine of, 259 ἢ; 
274 ff; work of a Christian Philo- 
282; transferred Philo’s doctrine of 
Logos to Christianity, 282 note 1; 
ascribed to Apollos, 282 note 1. 

Hefele, date of Epistle of Clement of 
Rome, i. 220. 

Hegesippus, refers to Epistle of Clement 
of Rome, i, 218 ; quotation from, 231 ; 


K K 2 


500 


Gospel of Hebrews, 414, 433f.; passage 
from, 414; account of him, and date, 
430f.; considered James chief of 
Apostles, 430; his account of James, 
430f.; his rule of faith, 431f.; his 
reference to Apocrypha discussed, 
433 ff ; surviving members of family 
of Jesus, 436; supposed reference to 
Matthew, 436; supposed reference to 
Luke, 438 ff.; fragment in Stephen 
Gobarus, 441; on heresies in early 
Church, 442; opposition to Paul, 
441 ff.; did not know any N. T. 
Canon, 443; Canon of Muratori 
ascribed to him, ii. 243; alleged 
reference to fourth Gospel, 316 ff. ; 
expression “door of Jesus” used by, 
316 ff. ; did not know our Gospels, 320. 

Hegrin, Angel, i. 131. 

Hengstenberg, on Sychar, John iv. 5, ii. 
422; the husbands of Samaritan 
woman typical of gods of Samaria, 
422; contradicts assertion that John 
was related to high priest, 423 note 4. 

Heracleon, used Κήρυγμα Πέτρου, i. 
458, ii. 227 ; views regarding Jesus, 
ii. 69 ff. ; date, 208ff.; alleged com- 
mentary on Luke, 226 ; inference that 
he wrote commentary on the fourth 
Gospel considered, 882, 

Hermas, Pastor of, i. 131; Hegrin, 
angel of beasts, 131; author, 256 f. ; 
date, 256 f.; no quotations from Synop- 
tics, 257; read in churches, 295, ii. 
167,171; alleged allusion to fourth 
Gospel, 253 ff. 

Heurtley, Dr., miracles necessary to 
prove Revelation, i. 5f., 9. 

Hug, ii. 84. 

Hume, his argument from Experience, 
i. 79 ff, attacked by Dr. Farrar, 
79; Mill’s criticism on, 79 ff., 93 f.; 
Paley’s argument against, 88 ff. 

Hyena, superstition regarding, i. 138. 

Hyginus, ii. 214. 

Hystaspes, Book of, quoted as Holy 
Scripture, ii. 168. 

Hilarion, St., miracles of, i. 169. 

Hilgenfeld, on quotation in Epistle of 
Barnabas i. 255; on Epistle of Poly- 
carp, 277 note 4, 278; on Prot- 
evangelium of James, 303 note 5; 
quotation on baptism of Jesus from 

| Gospel according to Hebrews, 321; 
Petrine tendency in Justin’s Memoirs, 
332; Justin quotes from Gospel of 
Hebrews or Peter, 333; on Justin’s 
quotations from Sermon on the 
Mount, 359; on use of Luke by 
Hegesippus, 438 f.; on Clementines, 
ii, 4; author of Clementines used 
same Gospel as Justin, 7 note 5; on 


Epistle of Peter attached to Clem, ! 





INDEX. 


Homilies, 21; on Basilides in Hip- 
polytus, 54; on Marcion’s Gospel, 
86 f.; on procedure of Tertullian 
and Epiphanius against Marcion, 
98 ff. ; insufficiency of data for the 
reconstruction of text of Marcion’s 
Gospel,. 101 ff. ; on passages in Mar- 
cion’s Gospel, 114, 117 notes 3 and 
5, 118, 120, 128 notes 4, 5, and 7, 
129 ; reference to Zacharias in Epistle 
of Vienne and Lyons, 202 f. ; on Prot- 
evang. Jacobi, 203; date of Barde- 
sanes, 222; admits use by Clemen- 
tines of fourth Gospel, 336 note 2. 
Hippolytus, supposed quotations from 
Synoptics by Basilides in work of, 
ii. 42; his mode of quoting, 51, 
52 ff; derived views of Basilides 
from works of followers, 54; on 
Valentinus, 56 f.; alleged quotations 
from Valentinus, 66 f. ; his system of 
quotation, 67 ff. ; on views of Valen- 
tinians, 69 ff.; on Heracleon and 
Ptolemeeus, 69 ff., 222 ; on Axionicus 
and Bardesanes, 70, 222; is writing 
of school and not of founder, 71 f. ; 
source of system of Valentinus, 75 f. ; 
Ptolemzeus and Heracleon, 206, 207 ff., 
214 f., 222; dependence on Irenzus, 
209 note 3; on Colarbasus, 217 ff. 
Hitzig, date of Book of Judith, i, 222. 


Ienativs, Epistles of, i. 258 ff. ; Syriac 
version, 259, 262 ff.; Medicean MSS., 
265; journey to martyrdom, 267 f. ; 
date and place of martyrdom of 
Ignatius, 268 f.; martyrologies spuri- 
ous, 268 f.; supposed references to 
Matt., 269 ff. ; use of Gospel accord- 
ing to Hebrews, 270, 272 f., 882 ἢ ; 
alleged references to the fourth 
Gospel, ii. 260 ff.; generally follow 
Synoptics and not fourth Gospel 
narrative, 266 note 3; alleged refer- 
ences do not cccur in Syriac Epistles, 
266; all spurious.or without eviden- 
tial value, 267. 

Incubi, i. 135. 

Infancy, Arabic Gospel of, i. 312. 

Trenzeus, on Septuagint version, O. T., 
i, 101; continuance of miraculous 
power in Church, 159 ff. ; on miracles 
of Simon and Carpocrates, 159 ; dead 
raised in his day, 159; succession of 
Clement of Rome, 218 ; reference to 
passage in Ignatian Epistles, 261; on 
Polycarp, 274 f.; memoirs of Presby- 
ter, 290; quotations of Justin against 
Marcion, 297; Davidic descent 
through Mary, 3(3 note 6; varia- 
tions from Matt. xi. 27, 404 f.; on 
Gospels of Marcosians, 406 ff; on 
Gospel of Ebionites, 423; on Pro- 


INDEX. 


verbs, 433; on Papias, 446 f., 450, 
li. 327 ; on connection of Peter with 
Gospel of Mark, 454, 456; date and 
place where Mark was written, 456, 
457 note 1; his quotation of Papias, 
475; on original language of Gospel 
of Matthew, 475; on Valentinus, 
ii. 57 ff. ; does not quote Valentinus, 
but later followers, 60 ff. ; quotation 
varying from Matt. xix. 17 from 
Gospel of Marcosians, 65; on Valen- 
tinians, 76 f, their Gospel, 76 ff, 
225 f.; charge against Marcion, 90 f. ; 
childish reasoning, 91; on Marcion’s 
Gospel, 144; does not mention 
Tatian’s Diatessaron, 155; Syriac 
fragment ascribed to him and Melito 
of Sardis, 184; does not mention 
work on Passover by Apollinaris, 189; 
on Ptolemeus and Heracleon, 206, 
207 f£., 218 ἢ, 215; date of his work 
adv. Heor., 209 ff. ; bearer of Epistle 
of Vienne and Lyons, 210 f.; mis- 
take regarding his passage on Tetrad 
of Valentinian Gnosis, 217 f.; Ptole- 
meus and Heracleon his contempo- 
raries, 219 ff.; regarding Polycarp, 
220; on Gospels of Valentinians, 
225 f.; quotation from fourth Gos- 
pel, 325, alleged to be made by 
Presbyters, and taken from work of 
Papias, 325 ff., actually by Ireneus 
himself, 326 ff., and not a reference 
to work of Papias, 329 ff: ; refers to 
many Presbyters, 331 ff. ; on Apoca- 
lypse, 393; tradition regarding Poly- 
carp and ‘Apostle John, 406; Poly- 
carp and Paschal controversy, 473; 
reasons why Gospels cannot be more 
or less than four, 474 ff. ; mentions 
heretics who reject fourth Gospel, 476. 

Trons, Dr., on miracles and evidence of 
Revelation, i. xvii. ; on Old Testament 
miracles, 95 note 1. 

Isaiah, Ascension of, i, 332 note 5, 
435, 441. 

Isaiah, Prophet, i. 232, 311, 441 ; ii, 10 ἢ 

Isidorus, ii. 45 note 3, 48, 53 

Itala Version, i. 323. 


James, Apostle, i. 430 ff, 431 note 2, 
473; ii 1£., 316 f. 

James, Epistle of, i. 854 note 1, 376; 
ii. 32, 241. 

James, Gospel according to, i. 292, 
802 ἢ, 303 note 5, 304 fF, 309 f, 
810 f., 312 ἢ ; ii, 202 ff 

Jews, credulous fickleness of, i. 99 ἢ ; 
Monotheism of the, 100; superstitions 
of the, 101 ff 

Jechiel, Angel, i. 108, 

Jehuel, Angel, i, 107 f, 





501 


Jequn, a fallen angel, seduced the holy 
angels, i. 103. 

Jerome, on Demons, i. 128; Angel 
Hegrin, 131; miracles of St. Hilarion, 
169; Epistle of Barnabas, 233; Rev. 
of Elias quoted by 1 Cor. ii. 9, 240, 
441; Gospel according to Hebrews, 
quoted by Epistle of Ignatius, 270, 
273, 333; Epistle- of Clement read 
in Churches, 295; Gospel of Hebrews 
on voice, &c., at Baptism of Jesus, 
321 ἢ ; considered Gospel of Hebrews 
original of Matt., 424 f., 473; trans- 
lated it, 423 ff. ; language of Gospel 
of Hebrews, 434; on connection of 
Peter with Gospel of Mark, 451; on 
original language of Gospel of Mat- 
thew, 471; who translated Hebrew 
original, 473; on Matt. xiii. 35, ii. 11 ; 
does not mention Tatian’s Diatessa- 
ron,-155 ; does not mention work on 
Passover, by Claudius Apolli 
189; date of Ireneus, 213 note 2; 
variation from Sept. of Zach. xiii. 10 
as quoted Αροο. i. 7, and by Justin, 
305. 

John, Apostle, i, 445, 473, ii. 190; 
kept 14 Nisan, ii. 271; writings 
ascribed to, 388 ; if he wrote Apoca- 
lypse could not have written Gospel, 
888 ff.; external evidence that he 
wrote Apocalypse, 392 ff. ; internal, 
395 ff.; character author of Apoca- 
lypse, 402 f.; character, son of Zebe- 
dee, 403 ff.; called the Virgin, 406 
note 3; author of Apocalypse, 408 f. ; 
residence in Ephesus, 409 f.; cha- 
racter son of Zebedee compared with 
author of Gospel, 410ff.; John of 
fourth Gospel different from John of 
Synoptics, 423 ff. 

John, Epistle of, first, said to have been 
referred to by Papias, i. 483, ii. 
470 ff. ; in Canon of Muratori, 241 f. ; 
alleged quotation of first, in Epistle 
of Polycarp, 267 ff. ; Credner assigns 
second and third, to Presbyter John, 
471 note 1; earliest references to, by 
Irenzeus and Clement of Alex., 471 
writer of last two, calls himself Pres 
byter, 471. 

John, Presbyter, i. 445, 446 ff.; ii. 397, 

Josephus, on exorcism, i, 118; on 
demons, 120; portents of fall of Jeru- 
salem, 120f. ; ; regarding Caiaphas, high 
priest, ii. 417 £.; Annas, high priest, 
418; Pool of Bethesda and its miracu- 
lous properties unknown to, 421. 

Judas Iscariot, account of his death by 
Papias, i, 482. 

Judas, Gospel according to, i. 292, 

Jude, Epistle of, quotes Book of Enoch 
i, 108; disputed, ii, 168, 241, 


502 


Judith, Book of, date, i. 222; men- | 


tioned by Clement of Rome, 222. 
Justa the Syropheenician, ii. 23 ff 
Justin Martyr, on exorcism, i. 119, 158; 

cosmical theories of, 121 £; on de- 

mons, 121; on demoniaes, 122, 158 ; 
continuance of miracles, 158 f. ; quo- 
tation apocryphal works, 231 ; Ascen- 
sion day, 256; date and history of, 
283 f.; his two Apologies, 284 £; 


Dial. with Trypho, 285; number of 


Scriptural quotations, 236; Memoirs 
of Apostles, 286 ff, theories with 
regard to them, 287 f£; Memoirs 
how quoted, 291 £, read in churches, 
295, i. 171; Memoirs not inspired, 
i 296 ἘΦ quotation from lost work 
against Marcion, 297; quotations 
with name and without from Ὁ. T., 

298; contents of Memoirs, 300 ff: 
genealogy of Jesus, 300 ff; events 
preceding birth of Jesus, 303 ff. ; re- 
moval to Bethlehem, 306 ff.; dwel- 
ling place of Joseph and Mary, 308 ff ; 

rergnry 310 ff ; Magi from 
Arabia, 313 f£; Jesus. works as a 
carpenter, 314 ff; baptism by John, 
316 f£ ; miracles of Jesus attributed 
to Magic, 324 £; trial, &., Jesus, 
325 f.; agony in the Garden, 328 ff, 
Jesus forsaken by all, 330 ff. ; Cruci- 
fixion, 333 ff.; mission of the Jews 
after resurrection, 340 f.; difference 
of the Memoirs from the Gospels, 
340 ff; style of teaching of Jesus, 
346; quotations from Memoirs of 
Sermon on the Mount compared with 
Synoptics, 346 ff. ; difference of pro- 
fessed quotations, 369 ff ; result of 
examination of quotations from Ser- 
mon on the Mount, 383 f. ; express 
quotations from Memoirs compared 
with Synoptics, 389 ΕΣ ; quotations of 
sayings of Jesus foreign to our Gos- 
pels, 412 ff ; apparent ascription of 
Memoirs to Peter, 417 ff. ; identity 
of the Memoirs of the Apostles with 
Gospel of the Hebrews or of Peter 


discussed, 419 ff; no evidence he | 
used our Gospels, 427 f.; Epistle to | 


Diognetus, once ascribed to him erro- 
neously, ii. 38; variation from Matt. 
xix. 17, 65; does not accuse Marcion 
of mutilating Gospel, 143 ; complains 
of adulteration of O.T. Scriptures, 
<° 166; used Gospel of Hebrews, 167 ; 
rn of brazen t, 253 note 3; 
as witness for fourth Gospel, 272 ἕξ ; 
Apocalypse only book in N. T. men- 
tioned by him, 273, 392; the Logos 
doctrine of Justin, 273 ff.; same 
representation in Epistles and Philo, 
273 ££ ; knew Logos doctrine of Plato 





























INDEX. 


277; held Plato and Socrates to be 
Christians, 277 1. ; his doctrine less 
developed than that of fourth Gos- 
pel, 278 £; real source of his ter- 
minology, 280 ff; his terminology 
different from that of fourth Gospel, 
280 ff, 286 ff, 296 ff; Psalm xxii 
20, 230; origin of Logos doctrine, 
281 f.; Justin follows Philo, and 
traces Logos doctrine to O. T., 284 ff, 
287 ff; Logos as “Wisdom,” 285; 
quotes Proverbs viii. 22 ff, 2827, 
285 f£ ; evidence of his indebtedness 
to Philo, 285 note 1, 287 ff, 294 
note 1; his representations of Logos 
also found in Epistle to Hebrews, 
288 ff, and early N. T. Epistles, 
289 ff ; Justin and Philo place Logos 
in secondary position, 291 ff. ; alleged 
references to fourth Gospel, 298 εἶ ; 
peculiarities of account of baptism, 
302 ἔ : variation from Zechariah xii. 
10 with fourth Gospel, 304 i, like- 
wise found in Apocalypse, 305, 
ΗΝ derived his reading from 

or its 305 ὃ: 
joe quotation from John iii. 3-5, 
306 ff., derived from different source, 
307 ff. ; Justin displays no knowledge 
of fourth Gospel, 313 ff; his de- 
seription of of Jesus does 
not apply to fourth Gospel, 3152, 468. 


Kaopes, a fallen angel, taught magic 
and exorcism, i. 104. 

Keim, ii. 233 note 2. 

Kirchhofer, ii. 233 note 2. 

Kostlin, ii. 85 ἢ, 


LacTaNTivs, on angels and demons, 
i. 132 ff. ; fall of angels, 133; exor- 
cism, 133 f., 164; antipodes, 136 ; 
Jesus accused of magic, 325; quotes 
Sibylline — and Hystaspes as in- 
spired, i. 1 

Laodiceans, Epistle to the, 11. 81, 169, 
240. 

Lardner, on passage in Eusebius regard- 
ing Gospel of Hebrews, i. 434; on 
“ Scriptures of the Lord ” referred to 
by Dionysius of Corinth, ii. 165; on 
Melito of Sardis, 173 note 2, 178; 
alleged quotation by Athenagoras 
from Luke, 197 note 1; date of 
Celsus, 233 note 2, 236. 

Law, miracles ascribed to unknown, 
i. 34£, to unknown connection with 
known, 35 £.; higher, 35 £; will of 
man subject to, 38 ff.; sense in which 
term used, 38 note 1. ; progressive suc- 
cession of, 39 f. ; invariability of 41 ff 

Lazarus, raising of, ii. 459 ff. 


INDEX. 503 


Lecky, History of Rationalism, i. 149 n. 2, 
Legion, an unclean company, i. 114 n. 5. 
Liddon, Canon, on evidential p 
of miracles and their nature, i, 33 
note 2. 

Lightfoot, on Jewish superstition, i. 
99 f. ; idea of regeneration attached 
by Jews to conversion, ii. 310 f. 

Lilith, she-devil, i, 112, 

Loffler, ii. 83. 

Logos, ‘doctrine of, in Septuagint 
version, ii, 255, 281 f., 284 f.; in 
Proverbs, 255, 282 ἢ, 285 f.; in 
Psalms, 280, 287 ἔ, 297; in O. Τὶ 
Apocrypha, 255, 281 ff, 285 ἢ: 
in Apocalypse, 273, 278 ; in Epistle 
to Hebrews, 258 ff., 274, 289 f., 298, 
366 ff; in Philo, 255, 257 note 1, 
259, 274 f., 276 £., 279, 290 ff, 298 £., 
295 £., 297; in Κήρυγμα Πέτρου 298 
note 1; in Pauline Epistles, 259 f., 
274 ff., 290, 292, 295, 811 ff.; in 
Plato, 277 f.; in Justin Martyr, 
273 ff; transferred from Philo to 
Christianity by the author of Epistle 
to Hebrews, 282 note 1, 298 note 1; 
in Clementines, 350 ff. ; in Epistle to 
Diognetus, 356 note 1, 364 ff; in 
Tatian’s work, 374 ff; in work of 
Athenagoras, 379 f. 

Lucian, ii, 233, 234, 236. 

Liicke, on Pastor of Hermas, ii. 253 
note 4 ; Ignatian Epistles, 260 note 4 ; 
Apocalypse and fourth Gospel can- 
not have been written by same author, 
390 f.; considers interpretation of 
Siloam, Jobn ix. 7, a gloss, 419. 

Luke, Gospel according to, private 
document written for Theophilus, i. 
152 note 1, ii. 134 ; many Gospels pre- 
viously written, i.213; genealogy of 
Jesus, 301 f.; events preceding birth, 
804 ; removal to Bethlehem, 306 ff.; 
dwelling-place, 308 ff. ; birth, 310 ff. ; 
Magi, 315 f.; ch. iii. 22, 323; agony 
in the Garden, 328 ff.; the Cruci- 
fixion, 336 ff; passages compared 
with Justin, 343 ff. ; ‘Sermon on the 
Mount” compared with Justin’s 
quotations, 346 ff. ; danger of infer- 
ences from similarity of quotations, 
360 ff, 397 ff, ii, 344; Pode quo- 
tations by Justin from, i. 387 ff. ; 
admitted express quotations by 
Justin compared with, 389 ff.; 
Gnostic and other variations from 
Luke, x. 22, 403 ff; alleged refer- 
ences by Hegesippus to, 438 ff; on 
xxiii. 34, 489 f.; alleged reference by 
Papias to it unfounded, 483 ; alleged 
quotations in Clementines, ii. 16, 
18 ἢ, ; alleged references of Basilides 
to, 42 ff. ; alleged references by Va- 





lentinus, 57 ff. ; relation of Marcion’s 
Gospel to, 82 ff. ; dependent on Mark 
and Matthew, 86; comparison of 
Marcion’s Gospel ven eine ἐπὶ 
parison of openin wit 
Matthew and antee, 130 ff; al- 
leged reference by Tatian to, 150; 
alleged quotations by Athenagoras, 
197 ; reference to Zacharias in Epistle 
of Vienne and Lyons, 201 ff.; al- 
leged commentary on, and references 
by Heracleon, 226; Canon of Mura- 
tori on the, 239 f. 242; result of ex- 
amination of evidence regarding, 
249, ch. iii. 15f., 300 note 1, 301; 
Irenzeus on, 475; result of examina- 
tion of evidence for, 481 f. 


Maoantvs, St., miracles of, i, 169. 


Magia Jesu Christi, i. 325. 
Magic, fallen angels, taught, i. 104, 105; 


Jews addicted to, 115 ff. ; discovered 
by Ham, 132; invented and sustained 
by demons, 133, 134; universality 
of belief in, 145 ff 


Magistris, Simon de, ii. 243. 
Mahomet claims Divine inspiration, i. 2; 


his religion pronounced irrational as 
without miraculous evidence, 3. 


Makturiel, Angel, i. 108. 
Manicheans, i. 476, 
Mansel, Dean:—Miracles necessary to 


Christianity, i. 6, 8 ; but cannot com- 
pel belief, 17 f.; demands scien- 
tific accuracy of evidence, 37 ; argu- 
ment for miracles from efficient cause 
as represented by will of man, 37 f. ; 
assumption of Personal Deity, 68 ff. 


Marcion, i. 229, 277, 285, 397, 410, ii. 


4, 38, 53, 74; account of him, 79 ff. ; 
date, 80; his collection of Christian 
writings, 80ff.; his Gospel, 81 ff ; 
theories regarding it, 82 ff, 84 note 
12; insecure data, 87 f.; sources of 
information, 88 ff.; dependent on 
statements of dogmatic enemies, 8y ; 
object of Fathers in refuting Mar- 
cion entirely dogmatic, 91 f. ; his 
alleged aim in mutilating Luke, 92 ; 
value of materials supplied by 
Fathers estimated, 92 ff. ; ‘l'ertullian 
and Epiphanius on, 93 ff. ; imperfect 
data of Fathers, 94 ff. ; had they his 
Gospel or only the Antithesis before 
them, 99 ff. ; accused of erasing pas- 
sages not in Luke at all, 100 £.; data 
for reconstruction of text insufficient, 
101 ff; his system and character, 
102 ff.; his work, “ Antithesis,” 
105 f.; hypothesis that his Gospel 
was a mutilated Luke rests upon 
Tertullian’s accusation, 108; the 


504 INDEX. 


hypothesis tested, 109 ff; result, 
124 f£, 249; the “Lord’s Prayer,” 
126; opening chapters of Luke, 
127 ff. ; his Gospel, probably an ear- 
lier Gospel than our Luke, 139 ff. ; 
Evangelium Ponticum, 140; had no 
author's name, 140ff. ; argument from 
state of his Epistles of Paul, 141 ff. ; 
Justin does not accuse him of mutilat- 
ing Gospel, 148; did he know other 
Gospels ? 144 ff.; statement of Latin 
MS. quoted by Tischendorf, 324 ἢ ; 
on his knowledge of fourth Gospel, 
372 £. 

Marcosians, Gospel of the, i. 406 ff ; ii. 65. 

Mark, Gospel according to, 1. 290; 
Jesus, the carpenter, 314 f.; quota- 
tions of Justin from Sermon on the 
Mount compared with, 347 note 4; 
danger of inferences from similarity 
of quotations, 362 ff., 397 ff. ; iL 178; 
supposed quotations by Justin from, 
i. 384 ff. 417; connection of Mark with 
Apostle Peter, 417 ff, 448 ff; Papias 
on, 444, 446, 448 ff; are there traces 
of Petrine influence _in ? 452 ff. ; when 
and where written, 451, 452 note 1; 
growth of tradition regarding, 451 f.; 
was our Gospel the work of Mark 
described by Papias? 455ff. ; supposed 
quotations in Clementines, ii. 23 ff, 
“6 f.; alleged quotations by Athena- 
goras, 197 f.; result of examination 
of evidence regarding date and origin, 
249 f.; Irenseus on, 475 f.; result of 
examination of evidence for, 481. 

Martin, St., miracles of, i. 169. 

Martyrdom, value of, as evidence, 1. 
1958. 

Mary, Gospel of Nativity of, i. 905, 309 
f., 410 notes 2 and 3. 

Massuet, ii. 212. 

Matthew, Gospel according to: sup- 
posed references to it by Clement of 
Rome, i. 223 ff ; supposed quotation 
as H. 8. by Epistle of Barnabas, 
236 Β΄, xx. 16, 243; supposed refer- 
ences to, in Epistle of Barnabas, 
250 ff.; supposed references to, in 
Epistle of Polycarp, 278 ff. ; genea- 
logy of Jesus, 301 f.; events pre- 
ceding birth, 204 ff.; dwelling-place, 
308 fi.; quotes apocryphal work, 
309 note 1; Magi, 313 ff; baptism 
by John, 316 ff., ch. iii. 15, 323 
agony in the Garden, 329 f.; Cruci- 
fixion, 336 ff. ; quotations affirmed to 
be made by Justin, 341 ff; quota- 
tions of Justin from Sermon on the 
Mount compared, 346 ff; danger of 
inferences from similarity of quota- 


tions, 360 ff, 397 fh; ii, 17 f., 3446; | 
admitted express quotations by Justin | 





compared with, 1, 389 ff; Gnostic 
and other variations from xi 27, 
403 ff, ii, 29; Gospel of Hebrews 
supposed to be original of, i 423 £.; 
relation to Gospel of Hebrews, 425 f. ; 
supposed reference of Hegesippus to, 
436 ff; Papias on, 444 ἔ., 461 ff, in- 
terpretation of and application of the 
account to, 462 ff; original language 
of our, 468 ff; critical dilemma in- 
volved from account of Papias, 468 £. ; 
testimony of the Fathers that work 
of Matthew was written in Hebrew, 
470 ff.; who translated it? 473; no 
evidence except of a Hebrew work, 
475 ff. ; Matthew cannot be author of 
the Greek, 475f.; apostolical autho- 
rity of Greek, gone, 476; canonical, 
an original Greek work, 476f.; re- - 
sult of evidence of Papias, 478 ff. ; 


_ facts confirming conclusion that work 


of Matthew known to Papias was 
not our, 481 ff.; different account 
of death of Judas by Papias, 482, 
and in Acts, 482 note 1; supposed 
quotations in Clementines, ii. 9 ff. ; 
regarding xii. 35, 10 ff.; alleged refer- 
ences in Basilides, 42 ff, 48 ff.; al- 
leged references by Valentinus, 57 ff., 
62 f£; comparison with opening 
chapters. Luke, 130 ff. ; alleged re- 
ference by Tatian to, 149 ff.; alleged 
reference to, by Dionysius of Corinth, 
170; alleged quotations by Athena- 
goras, 192 ff. ; alleged quotations by 
Ptolemzus, 224 f.; result of exami- 
nation of date and origin, 249 f.; ch. 
iii. 4, p. 300; iii. 11, 300 note 1; 
Irenzeus on, 475; result of examina- 
tion of evidence for, 481 f. 


Matthew, Gospel of pseudo-, i. 303. 
Matthias, Gospel according to, i. 293. 
Maury, on connection between ignorance 
~ and miracles, i. 204. 

Mechitarist Library, ii. 184. 

Melito of Sardis, date, ii. 172; fragment 


in Eusebius, 172 ff. ; alleged reference 
to New Testament, 173 ff. ; list of 
books of O. T. and diificulty of ob- 
taining it, 174 ff.; alleged evidence 
for a N. T. Canon, 174 ff. ; could not 
even state Canonical Books of O. T. 
without research, 178 ff.; Syriac, 
fragments ascribed to him, 179 f£; 
list of his works, 180 ἴ, ; fragment on 
Faith, 181 ff. ; alleged quotations from 
New Testament, 183 £.; fragment is 
spurious, 183 ff., also ascribed to 
Jrenzeus, 184; other works ascribed 
to Melito, 184 f.; on Apocalypse, 392 f. 


Memoirs of the Apostles, Justin’s, i. 


286 


Memra, ii. 415, 


INDEX. 


Messannahel, Angel, i. 108. 

Methodius, ii. 192. 

Michael, Archangel, presents prayers of 
saints to God, i. 102 note 7, 130; an- 
gel of Israel, 104, 109 f.; over fire, 
107; over water, 108; high priest of 
heaven, J10. 

Michaelis, If our Gospel of Matthew a 
translation, its authority gone, i. 476; 
on Celsus, ii. 233. 

Mill, John Stuart : criticism on Hume’s 
argument regarding miracles, i. 79 
ff., 93 f. 

Milman, Dean:—On spirit of early 
Christian times, i. 98 f.; on demonia- 
cal possession, 142 f.; explanation of 
apparent belief of Jesus in demonia- 
cal possession, 143 f.; character of 
early ages of Christianity, 198 f. ; 
Ignatian Epistles, 273 f.; on Marcion, 
ii. 107. 

Miracle of multiplication of loaves and 
fishes, i. 32 f.; of country of Gad- 
arenes, 142; of Thundering Legion, 
163, ii. 185 f.; raising of Lazarus, 
ii. 459 ff. 

Minucius Felix, exorcism in his day, i. 
164, 

Miracles, as evidence, i. 1 ff. ; as objects 
of faith, 7 ff; Satanic as well as 
Divine, 11 ff, 15 ff., 153 ff, ii, 478 £. ; 
credited because of Gospel, i. 18 ; true 
and false, 11 ἢ ; in relation to the 
order of nature 27 ff.; German critics 
generally reject, 28 ff; analysis of, 
29 ff.; referred to unknown law, 
34 f.; argument of, begins and ends 
with an assumption, 62 ff.; the age 
of, 95 ff; character of original wit- 
nesses of, 96 ff.; permanent stream 
of, 140 f.; miracles arising out of de- 
moniacal possession shown to be ima- 
ginary, 149 ff.; Christian and Pagan 
153 ff. ; Satanic, recognised by Old 
and New Testament, 152 ff.; when 
did they cease? 153 ff. ; Gospel, not ori- 
ginal, 154 ff.; claim of special distinc- 
tion of Gospel, 155 ff. ; ecclesiastical, 
158 ff.; miracles of Simon and Car- 
pocrates attributed to magic, 159 ; 
reported by Papias, 158; by Justin, 
158 ; reported by Ireneus, 159 ff. ; 
reported by Tertullian, 161 ff.; re- 
ported by Cyprian, 164; reported by 
Origen, 164; reported by Eusebius, 164; 
of Gregory Thaumaturgus, 165 ff. ; of 
St. Anthony, 167 ff; of Hilarion, 
169; of St. Macarius, 169; of St. 
Martin, 169; by relics of Protavius 
and Gervasius, 169 ff.; of St. Am- 
brose, 170; reported by St. Augus- 
tine, 170 ff; facts not verified, 179; 
argument of St, Augustine, and affir- 





505 


mation regarding, 180 ff. ; compara- 
tive evidence of, recorded by St. 
Augustine fand Gospels, 185 ff. ; mi- 
racles of saints, 187 ; classification of, 
188 ff. ; Christian miracles not origi- 
nal, 188 ff., 11, 478 f.; absence of dis- 
tinctive character, i. 191 ff. ; compari- 
son of evidence for Gospel and eccle- 
siastical, 193 ff; of Gospel sink in 
the stream, 196 ff. ; none recorded 
by actual workers, 201; confined to 
periods of ignorance, 202 f., ii. 479 f. ; 
ceased on diffusion of knowledge, 
i, 203 f., ii. 479 £.; at present day ar- 
gument refers to narrative and not to 
actual, i. 207 ἢ, ; the literary evidence 
for, 226 ff.; miracles are incredible 
antecedently, and are unsupported 
by evidence, ii. 477 ff. ; they are mere 
human delusion, 480. 

Modat, Prophecies of Eldad and, i. 257. 

Mosheim, ii. 235, 

Mozley, Canon :—necessity of miraculous 
evidence, i. 2f., 6f. ; miracles insepara- 
ble from Christianity, 9; cannot com- 
pel belief, 17; yet internal evidence in- 
sufficient, 21 ff. ; miraculous evidence 
checked by conditions, 24; miracles 
subject to moral approval of doctrine 
attested, 24; this only limitation not 
disproof of miracles as evidence, 24 ; 
referribleness of miracles to unknown 
law, or unknown connection with 
known law, 34 f, with “higher 
law,” 35 £.; is suspension of phy- 
sical laws by a spiritual being in- 
conceivable? 38 ff. ; progressive 
successions of law, 39 f.; antece- 
dent incredibility, 43 ff.; divine de- 
sign of Revelation, 46 ff.; belief in 
‘‘Order of Nature ”’ irrational, 55 ff ; 
argument of, begins and ends with 
assumption of Personal Deity, 62 ff. ; 
constant stream of miraculous preten- 
sion, 154 ff.; Jewish supernaturalism 
contemporary with Gospel miracles, 
154 f.; claim of speciality in Chris- 
tian miracles, 155 ff. ; either clearly 
distinguished or not of evidential 
value, 155 ff.; on statement of Ire- 
nus regarding continuance of mi- 
raculous power in Church, 159 ff. ; 
on miracles reported by St. Augus- 
tine, 175 f. ; his objections unfounded 
176 ff.; absence of verification ὁ 
miracles, 179; character of later ages 
of Christianity, 199; is Christianity 
believed upon miraculous evidence 
by the educated ? 205 ἢ, 

Muratori, Canon of : on Pastor of Hermas, 
i, 256; Apoc, of Peter, 296 note; ii, 
168; account of, 237 ff. ; age of MS., 
237 ; conflicting views regarding it, 


506 INDEX. 


237 £.; original language, 238 f.; on 
Luke, "939 ἢ, 242; contents, 240 ff. ; 
on Pastor of ‘Hermas, 242ff ;sx theories 
regarding unknown author of, 243 ff. ; 
date of the fragment, 244 ff.; its tes- 
timony, 247 f.; account of fourth 
Gospel, 383 ff ; 3 apology for fourth 
Gospel, 385 ἢ; author falsifies, 1 
Epistle of John, 385; does he refer 
to Apostle John? 385 ἘΠ 


NAASENTI, ii. 53. 

Narcissus, miracles of, i. 164 ἢ 

Natalius scourged by angels, i. 134 f. 

Nature, phenomena of, controlled and 
produced by angels, i. 104 ff, 107 ff, 
121 ff, 125, 127 Β΄, 130 ff. 

Nazarene, ii. 132 note 3. 

Nazarenes,~Gospel of the, i. 419, 423; 

i. 31. 


Ν pes on Gospel of Basilides, ii. 43 ; 
on Marcion, 84; on Clementines, 
341 f., 354. 

Newman, Dr. :—miracles necessary to 
prove Revelation, i. 6 ; onambiguous 
miracles, 13; miracles wrought by 
spirits opposed to God, 13 ἢ, ; doubt- 
ful origin destroys cogency of argu- 
ment for miracles, 14, 64; supports 
ecclesiastical at the expense of Gos- 
pel miracles, 18 note 3; a miracle 
at most token of a superhuman be- 
ing, 19 note 1; on mutual depen- 
dence of doctrine and miracle, 20; 
on the ‘‘ Rationalistic” and ‘‘ Catho- 
lic” tempers, 20 note 2; he really 
makes reason the criterion of mi- 
racles, 21; no miracle great in 
comparison with Divine  Incar- 
nation, 27 note 1; miracles reverse 
laws of nature, 31, 32 note 3; reli- 
gious excitement and imagination a 
cause of miracles, 97 f.; no definite 
age of miracles, 154; absence of dis- 
tinctive character in Christian mira- 
cles, 191. 

Nicephorus, stichometry of : 
247, 296 note, 422 f. 

Nicodemus, Gospel of : i. 293, 324, 
325 ff., 334 note 3, 338 f. 

Nuriel, Angel, i. 108. 

Nyssa, see Gregory. 


i. 218, 


CEcOLAMPADIUS, i. 476. 

CEcumenius, i. 482. 

Olshausen, ii. 84, 85, 121 note 1. 

Ophites, ii. 53, 214, 216, 248 note 2. 

Orelli, i. 240 5. 

Origen, on Angel Michael, i. 102 note, 7 
130; on demons, 126 ff. ; exorcism, 
127; analogy | between demons and 





animals recognized by Moses, 127; 
angels employed in natural pheno- 
mena, 128, 180 7. ; eating with demons, 
127 f. ; sun, moon, and stars endowed 
with souls, 128 ff; demons produce 
famines and other evils, 131; on 
Pheenix, 138; exorcism in his day, 
164; ascribes Epistle to Hebrews to 
Clemens Rom., 217; Epistle of Bar- 
nabas, 232 ; revelation of Elias quoted 
by, 1 Cor. ii. 9, 240, 441; reference 
to Epistle of Barnabas, 250 ff.; on 
Pastor of Hermas, 256; reference to 
passage in Epistles of Ignatius, 261; 
Doctrine of Peter, 272 f., 333, 420; 
Epistle to Hebrews, 290; birth of 
Jesus in a cave, 312; omission from 
Mark that Jesus was called a car- 
penter, 315; combination of passages 
similar to quotation in Justin, 350 
note 4; variation of quotation simi- 
lar to Justin’s, 356 note 2, 379 ; va- 
riation from Matt. xi. 27, 404; 
agreement of Gospel of Peter with 
that of Hebrews, 419; quotation in 
1 Cor. ii. 9,441; on Peter’s connection 
with Gospel of Mark, 450 ; denounced 
Κήρυγμα Πέτρου, 458; on composition 
and language of Gospel of Matthew, 
471; mentions “ Travels of Peter,’ 
ii. 4; on Gospel of Basilides, 42 note 
4; on Matt. xix. 17, 65; onValentinus, 
75; Dial. de recte in deum fide, not 
his, 88 ; on Heracleon, 214, 223, 226; 
supposed commentary on fourth 
Gospel by Heracleon, 226 f.; Origen 
against Celsus, 227 ff. ; on date and 
identity of Celsus, 228 ff. ; his uncer- 
tainty concerning Celsus, 229 ff.; ex- 
tation of further treatise by 
Celsus, 231 ff.; Celsus the Epicurean, 
233; quotations from Heracleon, 382 ; 
reply to Celsus on alteration of 
the Gospel, 383; on Apocalypse, 
394. 
Overbeck, ii. 39 note 3. 


Patey :—miracles proof of Revelation, 
i.4f.; argument against Hume, 88 f.; 
refuted, 89 ff. 

Pamphilus, martyr, of Ceesarea, i. 424. 

Pantzenus, i. 471; ii. 191. 

Papias of Hierapolis, on raising of a 
dead man, i. 158; regarding Mark, 
290, 418 i; quotes Gospel according 
to Hebrews, 422; date and history, 
444 f.; prefers tradition to written 
works, 445 f., 11, 321 f.; on Mark’s 
Gospel, i. 444, 446, 448 ff.; statement 
in preface of his work, 445; identity 
of Presbyter John, 446 ff.; Mark as 
the interpreter of Peter, 448 ff. ; the 


—— ων 


ee ee δίδει, ὁ 


—— oe ξυλίνων 


ae eo. Fe 


INDEX. 


description of Presbyter John does 
not apply to our Mark, 455 ff. ; how 
Mark’s work disappeared, 459 f. ; ac- 
count of work ascribed to Matthew, 
461 ff. ; was it derived from Presbyter 
John? 461 ἢ, ; interpretation and ap- 
plication of the account to our Gospel 
according to Matthew, 462 ff ; were 
Λόγια merely discourses, or, did they 
include historical narrative? 463 ff. ; 
not applicable to our Gospel, 465 
ff.; explanation of his remark regard- 
ing interpretation of Logia, 473 ff. ; 
did not know a Greek Matthew, 475 
f.; fragment of his work preserved, 
482 f£.; account of death of Judas 
Iscariot, 482; said to have used 
Epistles of John and Peter, 483, ii. 
323, 471; knew no canonical Gospels, 
i, 484 f.; does not call Matthew who 
wrote Logia an Apostle, 485 note 1 ; 
Canon of Muratori ascribed to him, 
ii. 243; does not know fourth Gos- 
pel, 320 ff; knew no authoritative 
Gospels, 322; offers presumptive evi- 
dence against fourth Gospel, 322 ff. ; 
no proot he knew 1 Epistle of John 
or assigned it to Apostle, 323 ἢ, ; 
statements in Latin MS. preface to 
fourth Gospel, 324 f.; alleged quo- 
tation by Presbyters in Irenzus re- 
ferred to his work, 325 ff., quotation 
is by Irenzeus, and no evidence that 
the Presbyters are connected with 
Papias, 326 ff, 331 ff. ; Papias asserted 
Apostolic origin of Apocalypse, 335 f., 
392, 

Paraclete, first mentioned in fourth 
Gospel, ii. 464. 

Parchor, ii. 45. 

Paschal Chronicle, ii. 186, 190, 212. 

Paschal controversy, i. 278; 11, 186 ff, 
271, 472 £. 

Pastor of Hermas, see Hermas, 

Paul, Apostle: i. 421, 441; Clementines 
directed against him, ii. 4; Clemen- 
tines attack him under the name of 
Simon the Magician, 34 ff., 342, 353 
f., 407; Theodas his disciple, 75; 
Marcion’s Epistles of, 80 f., 141 ἢ ; 
party in the Church, 104 ; his Gospel, 
140; accusations against Apostles, 
145 f.; rejected by Encratites, 162; 
alleged recommendation of a - 
phal works, 168 note ὅ ; falsification 
of his Epistles, 169 ; Epistles of Paul 
and Seneca, 169; Acta Pauli et Thecle, 
170; Epistles in Canon of Muratori, 
240 ἢ, ; Paul a servant of Jesus Christ, 
390; evidence regarding John, 405; 
tradition regarding him and John, 
406 note 3, attacked in Apocalypse, 
407 ἢ, 





507 


Pauli et ΤΉ οί, Acta, ii. 270. 

Pauline Epistles, Logos doctrine in, ii. 
259 f. 

Pauli Pradicatio, i, 322 ἢ, 

Paulus: his treatment of miracles, i. 28 ; 
on Marcion, ii. 84. 

Pénémué, a fallen angel, i. 104. ᾿ 

Peratici, ii, 53, 248 note 2. 

Peter, Apocalypse of, i. 295 f. ; 11, 168, 
241, 

Peter, Apostle, i. 286, 290, 291 note 3, 
417 ff, 448 ff, 452 ff; ii. 1 ff, 3, 6, 
84 ff, 44, 104, 347, 352 £. 

Peter, Doctrine of, i. 273, 333, 420 f. 

Peter, Epistle of, first, said to have 
been used by Papias, i. 483. 


Peter, Gospel according to, i. 288 ἢ, 


292, 296, 303 note 5, 417 ff, 419 ff. ; 
ii. 7, 160 f., 167. 

Peter, Preaching of (Κήρυγμα Πέτρου), 
i. 888, 468 f., 461; ii, 2£, 227, 298 
note 1. 

Peter, Travels of (Περίοδοι Πέτρου), ii. 


2, 4, 

Philastrius, ii. 206, 209, 218, 219. 

Philip, Apostle, story related by daugh- 
ters of, i. 158; appealed to by Poly- 
crates in support of 14th Nisan, 468. 

Philip Sidetes, ii. 191 ἢ 

Philo :—date of, ii. 264 note 5; type 
of brazen serpent, 253 note 3; "Logos 
as Rock, 257 note 1; Logos over 
universe, 259 f,, 274, 277; Logos 
before all things, 259, 277,294 ; first 
begotten Son of God, 259 note 3, 
274, 290 note 2; Eternal Logos, 265; 
Logos the bread from heaven, 265; 
Logos the fountain of wisdom, 266 ; 
Logos guides man to Father, 266; 
Logos as substitute of God, 274; 
Logos as the image of God, 274, 275, 
276, 294; Logos as Priest, 274 f., 289 
f.; Logos by whom world was niade, 
275, 276, 290 note 2; Logos the 
second God, 276, 290 f.; Logos the 
interpreter of God, 276; Logos the 
ambassador of God to men, 277, 294; 
Logos the power of God, 276; Logos 
as king; Logos as angel, 291, 298 f., 
294; Logos as the beginning, 294; 
Logos as the east, 294 note 1; Logos 
the name of God, 294; Logos as man, 
294, 295 f£.; Logos as Mediator, 294 
f.; Logos as Light, 297 note 2, 

Phoenix, i. 137 ἢ 

Photius, Clemens Rom., reputed author 
of Acts of the Apostles, i i, 217; frag- 
ment of Hegesippus, 435; does not 
mention work on Passover by Apol- 
linaris, ii. 189; on history of Philip 
Sidetes, 190; fragment of Athena- 
goras, 192, 

Pierius of Alexandria, ii, 190, 


508 


Pindar, ii. 53. 

Pius of Rome, ii. 248, 244, 245, 246. 

Plato, ii. 71, 76, 214, 277£., 291 note 4. 

Polycarp, in connection with Paschal 
controversy, ii. 271, 472 f.; tradition 
regarding John, 406. 

’ Polycarp, Epistle of, i. 274 ff ; account 
of him, 274 f.; date 275 f.; authen- 
ticity discussed, 275 ff.; supposed 
references to Synoptics, 278 ff. ; on 
Passover, ii. 189; alleged quotation 
from 1 Epistle of John, 267 ff., in- 
dependent of Epistle, 269 ff. 

Polycrates, ii. 189, 406, 473. 

Pontus, ii. 140. 

Porphyry, on Matt. xiii. 35, ii. 11. 


Possession, demoniacal, i. 114 ff.; in, 


man and animals, 114 ; cause of dis- 
ease, 107, 115; universality of belief 
in, 141 ff.; reality of, asserted by 
Jesus, 141 ff.; reality asserted in Old 
Testament, 143 f. ; belief in, dispelled, 
149 ff; continuance of, asserted, 
158 ff. 

Pothinus, ii. 200, 201 note 3, 211, 333 
note 1. ς 

Powell, Professor Baden :—no evidence 
of a Deity working miracles, i. 74; 
at present day not a miracle but a 
narrative of miracles discussed, 207 f. 

Prayer, ‘‘ The” Lord’s, ii. 18, 126. 

Presbyters, quoted by Papias and Ire- 
neus, ii, 321 ff. 

Prepon the Marcionite, ii. 222. 

Primus, Bishop of Corinth, i. 432. 

Protavius, St., miracles by relics of, i. 
169 ff. 

Protevangelium, see Gospel of James. 

Proverbs of Solomon, i. 433; doctrine 
of Logos in, ii. 255, 282 f., 285. 

Pseudographs, number of, in early 
Church, i. 282 f., 292 ff, 460 f.; 11, 
167 £. 169 ἢ. 

Ptolemzeus : Irenzus on, ii. 60 ἢ, ; Hip- 
polytus on, 69 ff.; date of, 205 ff ; 
Epistle to Flora, 205, 207, 224 f.; 
alleged quotation from Matthew, 224 
f.; duration of ministry of Jesus, 
227 note 2; alleged reference to 
fourth Gospel, 381 f. 

Pythagoras, 11, 71, 75 f., 214. 


RacueEt, Angel, i. 104. 

Raphael, Angel : charm for exorcising 
demons, i. 102 f.; angel of healing, 
102,104,130; presents prayers of saints 
to God, 102; angel of spirits of men, 
104 ; over earth, 108. 

Reuss, on passage Epistle of Barnabas, 
j. 255; on Clementines, ii. 4; cha- 
racter of Tertullian, 90. 

Revelation, Divine, only such by virtue 





INDEX. 


of telling something undiscoverable 
by reason, and requires miraculous 
evidence, 1, 1 ff, ii. 477 ff; Veda 
claims to be, i. 2; religion of Zoroaster 
claims to be, 2; Mahomet proclaims, 
2; design and details of the, 46 ff. ; 
design of, contradicted by experience, 
49 ff., ii. 480; result of inquiry into 
the reality of, 11, 477 ff; we gain 
more than we lose by abandoning 
theory of, 489 f.; if we know less 
than we supposed we are not com- 
pelled to believe what is unworthy, 
490; the argument that it is neces- 
sary for man is purely imaginary, 
491 ἢ, 

Ritschl, on Marcion’s Gospel, ii. 85, 86, 

96, 101, 102, 129. 

Romans, Epistle to the, i. 256; ii. 62, 
66 note 3, 70, 71 note 1. 

Routh, ii. 319, 335, note. 

Ruchiel, Angel, i. 108. 

Rufinus, i, 434, 465 note 2; ii. 2, 3, 4. 


Sarnts, Bollandist Collection, i. 187. 

Samaél, Angel of Death over Gentiles, 
i. 108. 

Samaria, five nations and gods of, typi- 
fied by husbands of Samaritan wo- 
man, John iv. 5 ff.; ii. 422 ff 

Samniel, Angel, i. 108. 

Sandalfon, Angel,i. 108. 

Saraqiel, Angel, i. 104. 

Saroel, Angel, i. 108. 

Satan, Angel of Death, i. 108. 

Schafriri, Angel, i. 112. 

Schamir, aided Solomon in building the 
Temple, i. 118. 

Schleiermacher, explained away wi- 
racles, i. 27 f.; explanation of Papias’ 
remark regarding interpretation of 
the Logia, 473 ; Marcion’s Gospel, ii. 
83 


Schliemann, ii. 351 note 6. 

Schmidt, J. E. C., ii. 88, 

Schneckenburger,on Gospel of Basilides, 
ii. 49, 

Schneidewin, ii. 71. 

Schoettgen, Academia Celesti, i. 114 
note 3; Jewish practice of Magic, 
115. 

Scholten, on Justin’s reference to Acta 
Pilati, i. 327 f.; type of brazen ser- 
pent in Epistles of Barnabas, ii. 253 
note 3; on alleged quotation from 1 
Epistle of John in Epistle of Poly- 
carp, 269. 

Schultz, ii. 83. 

Schwegler, on origin Gospel of Hebrews 
and Matthew, i. 425; on Justin’s use 
of Gospel of Hebrews, 427 note 3; 
on Marcion’s Gospel, ii. 85 ; nameless. 


INDEX. 


ness of Marcion’s Gospel evidence of 
originality, 140 f. 

Semisch, on Justin’s memoirs, i. 311, 
328 f. 

Semler, ii. 82. 

Septuagint version of Bible, i. 101, 109, 
336, 337, 441; ii. 10, 255, 280, 281 £., 
284, 286, 304, 305£., 338 note 1, 428. 

Serapion, Bishop of Antioch, on Gospel 
according to Peter, i. 419; ii. 160 ἢ, 
167. 

Shibta, an evil spirit, i, 113, 115 note 2. 

Sibylline Books, i, 323; ii. 168. 

Sibyllists, Christians called, ii, 168, 236. 

Sichem, i. 284; ii. 421 f. 

Siloam, ii. 419. 

Simon the Magician, his part in the 
Clementines, ii. 3, 12, 14, 34 ff. 

Sinaiticus, Codex, i, 235 f., 237, 243, 
269, 256, 296 note, 351 notes 3, 4, 
352 note 1, 353 note 2, 439; ii. 11, 
18, 25 note 3, 168, 268 note 1, 300 
note 2, 307, 308, 350 note 4. 

Socrates, Historian, ii. 191. 

Solomon, a great magician, i. 117 ff. ; 
taught wisdom by demons, 118 ; com- 
posed powerful charms and forms of 
exorcism, 118. 

Sopater executed for sorcery, i. 148. 

Sophia, ii. 69 f., 281 ff, 285 ff.,350f., 415. 

Sorcery, i. 115 ff. ; universality of belief 
in, 145 ff; St. Athanasius and St. 
Cyprian accused of, 147. 

Soter, Bishop of Rome, i. 295, 432; ii. 
163, 164, 171. 

Spencer, Mr. Herbert; on the evan- 
escence of evil, i. 50 note 1. 

Spingsa : even existence of God cannot 
be inferred from miracles, i. 15, 76. 
Spruchsammlung, i. 243, 252, 266 ; ii. 

465. 

Stag, superstition regarding, i. 138. 

Stars believed to be living entities, i. 
105 £., 128 ff 

Stephanus, H., ii. 39 note 3. 

Stichometry of Nicephorus, derived 
from Syrian catalogue, i. 218 ; Epistle 
of Clement of Rome, 218; Eldad and 
Modat, 257 ; Gospel of Hebrews, 422 
f., 426. 

Storr, ii. 84. 

Stoughton, Dr., on assumptions, i. 62 
note 1. 

Succubi, i. 135; 186 note 1, 

Sychar, ii. 421 f. 

Symmachus, ii. 305. 


TatTaM, Dr., Syriac MSS., i. 259. 

Tatian, on demons, i. 123 f.; on de- 
moniacal origin of disease, 124; Dia- 
tessaron called Gospel of Hebrews, 
421 f.; account of him, ii. 148 f.; 
Oration to the Greeks, 148 f.; no 





509 


quotations from Synoptics, 149; al- 
leged reference to parable in Matthew, 
149 ff.; to Luke, 150 f. ; theories re- 
garding his Diatessaron, 153 ff., called 
Diapente, 153, called Gospel of He- 
brews, 153, 155, Theodoret’s account 
of Diatessaron, 155 f.; difficulty of 
distinguishing it, 158 ; its peculiari- 
ties shared by other uncanonical 
Gospels, 159 f. ; later history, 161 f.; 
sect of Encratites rejected Paul, and 
used apocryphal Gospels, 162 f. ; 
alleged use of fourth Gospel, 374 f. ; 
his Logos doctrine, 374 ff. 

Tertullian; miracles without prophecy 
cannot prove Revelation, i. 13, 
note 1; on Book of Enoeh, 103 f.; 
on demons, 124 ff.; demoniacal origin 
of disease, 124 ff.; Cosmical theories, 
125; on Phoenix, 138 ; change of sex 
of Hyena, 138; superstition regard- 
ing stag, 138; on volcanoes, 139; 
continuance of miraculous gifts, 161ff.; 
account of miracles, 162 ff; passage 
in Marcion’s Gospel, 229; Epistle to 
Hebrews ascribed to Barnabas, 233 ; 
descent through Mary, 303 note 6; 
variation of Marcion’s Gospel from 
Luke x. 22, 410; on connection of 
Peter with Mark’s Gospel, 449 f£.; on 
Valentinus, ii. 74 f.; source of his 
work onValentinians,75; views regard- 
ing Marcion not trustworthy, 83; his 
style of controversy and character,89f.; 
charge against Marcion of mutilating 
Luke,90ff; Marcion’s alleged aim,92f.; 
the course which Tertullian intends 
to pursue in refuting him, 92 ff. ; had 
he Marcion’s Gospel before him ? 
99 ff.; he had not Luke, 100; re- 
proaches Marcion for erasing from 
Luke passages not in the Gospel,100f.; 
on Marcion’s Antithesis, 105; com- 
pares Marcionites to the cuttle-fish, 
106 note 3; his account of Marcion's 
object, 107 ff.; undertakes to refute 
Marcion out of his own Gospel, 109 f.; 
calls Marcion’s Gospel “ Evangelium 
Ponticum,” 140, 872 f. no author’s 
name affixed, 141; on Marcion’s de- 
ductions from Epistle to Galatians, 
145 ; on martyrdom of Zacharias, 203; 
on Axionicus, 228. 

Testament, Old and New, origin of 
name, ii. 174 ff; earliest designation 
ὁ 1715 

Theodas, ii. 175, 225. 

Theodoret quotes Xenophanes, i. 77 
note; found Gospel of Hebrews cir- 
culating, 422 f.; on Tatian’s Diates- 
saron, ii. 153 ἔν, 155f£, 159 ff; does 
not mention any work on the Pass- 
over by Apollinaris, 189, 


510 


Theodotion’s version Ὁ, T., ii. 212, 213 
note 1, 305. 

Theophilus, Luke’s Gospel a private 
document for use of, i. 152 note 1. 
Theophilus of Antioch :—Greek poets 
inspired by demons, i. 122; serpent 
and pains of childbirth proof of truth 
of Fall in Genesis, 122 note 12; 
exorcism, 159; Canon Westcott on, 
ii. 192; on Apocalypse, 393; date 
of Ep. ad Autol, 474 note 1; first 
who mentions John in connection 

with passage from Gospel, 474. 
Theophylact, i. 482. 
Thomas, Gospel according to, i. 292,315. 
Timotheus of Alexandria, i. 269. 
Tischendorf, on date of Epistle of 
Clement of Rome, i. 220; Clement 
does not refer to our Gospels, 
223; probably oral tradition source 
of words of Jesus, 230 note 1; on 
Epistle of Barnabas, 250 ff, ii. 168 ; 
on Pastor of Hermas, i. 257 ; Epistles 
of Ignatius, 269 ff.; Protevangelium 
of James, 302 f., 305, ii. 202 £.; 
quotation from Protevangelium by 
Justin, i. 305, 312; on Gospel of Nico- 
demus, 326 ff.; quotations of Justin 
asserted to be from Matthew, 342 ff; 
on supposed quotations by Justin of 
Mark and Luke, 384 ff. ; on Hegesip- 
pus, 442 f.; on books referred to by 
Papias, 445 note 2; argument for 
identity of works described by Papias 
with our Gospels, 460 f.; on inter- 
pretation of word Adyia, 463 ff, 465 
note 2; on original language of our 
Gospel according to Matthew, 468; 
on applicability of account of Papias 
to it, 468 ff; on disparagement of 
Papias, 469 f.; uncritical spirit of 
Fathers, 472; on Clementines, ii. 9 
note 1; on work of Basilides on the 
Gospel, 42, 44, 46; alleged quota- 
tions by Basilides from Gospel, 48 ff., 
not by Basilides, 48, 50; on alleged 
quotations of Gospels by Valentinus, 
56 Ε΄ ; falsification of Hippolytus, 
56 ff. ; falsification of Irenzeus, 57 ff. ; 
his argument, 59 f.; alleged quota- 
tion by Valentinus in work of Hippo- 
lytus, 66 f.; admits uncertainty of 
source of quotations of Hippolytus, 
68; Tatian does not quote Synoptics, 
149; date of Tatian’s Diatessaron, 
153 f.; asserts it harmony of our 
Gospels, 154 ; expressions of Diony- 
sius claimed as references to Gospels, 
164 f.; does not cite Melito, 172; 
claims fragment of Apollinaris as 
evidence for our Gospels, 187; on 
Athenagoras, 192 f.; on martyrdom 
of Zacharias in Epistle of Vienne and 





INDEX, 


Lyons, 202 f.; alleged quotations of 
Gospels by Ptolemzus, 205; date of 
Ptolemeus, 205 ff.; date of Hera- 
cleon, 213 ff.; meaning of γνώριμος, 
214, 217 f.; Epiphanius on Cerdo, 
214, 216; date of Celsus, 228 ff.; on 
Epistle of Barnabas as evidence for 
fourth Gospel, 251 ff; on use of 
fourth Gospel in Ignatian Epistles, 
260 ff.; alleged reference in Epistle 
of Polycarp to 1 Epistle of John, 
267 ff.; on Justin as evidence for 
the fourth Gospel, 272 ff.; does not 
claim Hegesippus as witness for 
fourth Gospel, 316; his argument 
that Papias is not a witness against 
fourth Gospel, 322 f.; argument re- 
garding silence of Eusebius, 322 f. ; 
attempt to make Papias witness for 
it, 323 f.; extraordinary argument 
from reference to Papias in Latin 
MS., 324 ἢ ; alleged connection of 
Papias with Presbyters referred to by 
Treneus, 325 ff., alleged quotation 
not by Presbyters but by Irenzeus, 
326 ff.; alleged references in Clemen- 
tines to fourth Gospel, 336 ff. ; 
alleged references to fourth Gospel 
in Epistle to Diognetus, 354 ff.; 
alleged reference by Basilides, 371 ; 
alleged references by Tatian, 374 ff. ; 
date of Theophilus ad Autolyc., 474 

~ note 1. 

Tobit, Book of, Jewish superstitions in 
the, i. 102. 

Trench, Archbishop :—Miracles cannot 
command obedienceabsolutely, i. 15 f.; 
office of miracles, 16 ff.; Satanic mi- 
racles, 15 ff. ; theory of reminiscence, 
16 note 1; analysis of miracles, 30 ff. ; 
ingenious way of overcoming diffi- 
culty of miracles, 53 f.; exemption 
from physical law a lost prerogative 
of our race, 53 note 1; demoniacal 
possession, 141 ff. ; on belief of Jesus 
in reality of demoniacal possession, 
142 f.; are there demoniacs now ? 
144; on withdrawal of miraculous 
power, 157 f. 

Twelve, Gospel according to the, i. 
293. 


ΤΉΠΗΟΒΝ, ii. 351 note 1. 
Uriel, Angel, i. 104. 
Usher, Archbishop, i. 263. 


VALENTINDS, date and history of, ii. 55f., 
206 ff. ; alleged references to Gospels, 
56 ff.; Irenzeus does not refer to him 
but to later followers, 59 ff.; letter 
of, quoted by Clement of Alexandria, 
62 ἔ, ; alleged quotations in work of 





INDEX. 611 


Hippolytus, 66 ff; Eastern and 
Italian schools, 69 ff.; quotations not 
made by Valentinus, 70 ff.; results 
regarding alleged quotations, 73 f. ; 
Tertullian on, 74 £; his alleged use 
of N. T., 74 ff.; professed to have 
traditions from Apostles, 75; rejects 
Gospels, 76 ff.; the Gospel of Truth, 
77 £.; his followers, Ptolemzeus and 
Heracleon, 205 ff.; alleged reference 
to fourth Gospel, 56 f., 68 f., 371 f. 

Vaticanus, Codex, i. 243, 353 note 2, 
439 ; ii. 350 note 4. 

Veda, considered divinely inspired, i. 2. 

Victor of Capua, ii. 153, 161. 

Vienne and Lyons, Epistle of, date and 
circumstances, ii. 200 £.; 210 £.; re- 
ferences to Zacharias, 201; Irenzus, 
bearer of, 210 ἢ, ; alleged reference 
to fourth Gospel, 380 f. 

Volcanoes, openings into Hell, i. 139 ; 
account by Gregory the Great, 139 
note 2, 

Volkmar :—date of Book of Judith, i. 
222; author of Clementines used 
same Gospel as Justin, ii. 7 note 5; 
on quotations of Hippolytus, 53 ; on 
Marcion’s Gospel, 86 f.; author of 
Dial. de recte in deum fide on Mar- 
cion, 88 f.; on procedure of Ter- 
tullian against Marcion, 92 f., 95 f. ; 
arguments ὦ silentio, 95, 96 note 2; 
incompleteness and doubtful trust- 
worthiness of Epiphanius and Ter- 
tullian against Marcion, 96 ff. ; their 
contradictions, 98 ἢ, ; on insufficiency 
of data for reconstruction of text of 
Marcion’s Gospel, and settlement of the 
discussion, 102; on passages in Mar- 
cion’s Gospel, 117 notes 3 and 5, 118, 
119 note 2, 120 note 2, 121 note 2, 
128 notes 4, 5, 7, 129 f., 185 note 2; 
date of Ptolemeus and Heracleon, 
222 note 2; on date of Celsus, 228, 
232; on language of Canon of Mura- 
tori, 238 note 3; on alleged quota- 
tion from 1 Epistle of John in 
Epistle of Polycarp, 269; admits 
probable use of fourth Gospel by 
Clementines, 336 note 2. 

Vulgate, ii. 10 note 4. 


WEASELS, i. 127, 138 note 7. 

Weizsiicker, on Epistle of Barnabas, i. 
243 ; on quotation in work of Hippo- 
lytus ascribed to Valentinus, ii. 68 f. 

Westcott, Canon: miracles inseparable 
from Christianity, i. 9 f.; assumption 
of Personal God cannot be proved, 
64 note 2; to speak of God as 
Infinite and Personal a contradiction, 
69, note 3; on a quotation of Jus- 
tin’s, 334 note 4; apologetic criticism 





by, 360 note 1; on coincidence be- 
tween quotation of Justin and 
Clementines, 377 note; on Justin's 
quotations from the “ Memoirs,” 
387 ff.; on Apocrypha of Hegesip- 
pus, 435 note 1; supposed reference 
of Hegesippus to Luke, 438; on 
the uncritical character of first 
two centuries, 461 note 1; _ his 
silence regarding original language 
of work attributed to Matthew, 469 
note 2; on Clementines, ii. 9 note 1; 
on supposed quotation from Mark in 
Clementines, 26 f.; Paul attacked as 
“the enemy” in Clementines, 35, 
note 1; on Basilides, 42; statement 
regarding Glaucias to whom Basilides 
appealed, 44 f.; his explanation of 
use of uncanonical works by Basil- 
ides, 45 f.; assertion that ilides 
admitted historic truth of Gospels, 
47 f£.; no reference to N. T. in 
fragments of Isidorus, 48; alleged 
quotations of our Gospels by Basilides, 
50 ff.; uncertainty regarding writings 
used by Hippolytus, 52 ff.; silence 
regarding doubt whether Hippolytus 
quotes Basilides, 54; on the formula 
employed in the supposed quotations, 
55; does not refer to quotations of 
Valentinus alleged by Tischendorf, 
62; extraordinary statement regarding 
Valentinus, 62 ff; alleged references 
of Valentinus to Matthew, 62 ff£.; 
alleged quotation by Valentinus from 
Gospels in work of Hippolytus, 66 ff. ; 
silence regarding uncertain system 
of quotation of Hippolytus, 69 f.; 
does not state facts, 71; assertion 
regarding Valentinus and New Testa- 
ment Canon, 74 ff.; not clear that 
Marcion himself altered his Gospel, 
137 £, 373; some supposed altera- 
tions, various readings, 138 ; on text 
of Marcion’s Epistles of Paul, 142; 
on passage in Tertullian on Marcion’s 
treatment of Gospels, 146; alleged 
references of Tatian to Matthew, 
149 ff., 151 f.; on Tatian’s Diates- 
saron, 156 ἢ, ; the incorrectness of his 
assertions, 157 f.; Tatian’s Diates- 
saron said to be first recognition of 
a four-fold Gospel, 160; later his- 
tory of Diatessaron involved in con- 
fusion, 161; on ‘‘ Scriptures of the 
Lord” referred to by Dionysius of 
Corinth, 165 ff..; incorrectness of his 
deductions from words of Dionysius, 
168 ff.; alleged reference of Dionysius 
to Matthew and the Apocalypse, 170; 
and to a New Testament Canon, 170f.; 
cn works read in Churches, 171; 
asserts that Melito of Sardis speaks 


512 


of a collected New Testament, 
172 ff.; extraordinary nature of this 
assertion, 173 ff; he follows and 
exaggerates Lardner, 173 note 2; 
value of Melito’s evidence for New 
Testament Canon, 178 ff. ; on Syriac 
fragment of Oration, 181; fragment 
on Faith, 181 ff. ; silence as to doubt- 
ful character, 183; claims fragment 
ascribed to Apollinaris as evidence 
for our Gospels, 187; on alleged 
quotations of Athenagoras, 192 f.; on 
Ptolemzeus and Heracleon, 205 note 1, 
206 213 note 3, 226 note 7, 227 
note 2; Ptolemzus on duration of 
ministry of Jesus, 227 note 2; date 
of Celsus, 233 note 2; on Canon of 
Muratori, 239 note 1;:Clement of 
Rome as evidence for fourth Gospel, 
251 note 1; alleged allusions in 
Pastor of Hermas to fourth Gospel, 
253 ff., 260note 3; alleged Johannine 
influence traceable in Ignatian Epis- 
tles, 262 f.; on evidence of Justin for 
fourth Gospel, 272; claims Hege- 
sippus as witness for fourth Gospel, 
316 f.; alleged quotation by Presby- 
ters in Irenzeus from work of Papias, 
328 note 4; assertion that Papias 
knew fourth Gospel, 334 note 9; 
Papias maintained divine inspiration 
of Apocalypse, 335 note; alleged 
references in Clementines to fourth 
Gospel, 336 ff. ; alleged references to 
fourth Gospelin Epistle to Diognetus, 





INDEX. 


355 ff.; alleged reference to fourth 
Gospel. by Basilides, 371; alleged 
references by Tatian, 374 ff.; alleged 
reference to fourth Gospel by Ath- 
enagoras, 379 f.; passage in Canon of 
Muratori, 384 note 1; contrast in 
form and spirit between fourth 
Gospel and Synoptics, 449. 

Wette, De, on quotations of Justin 
compared with our Synoptics, i. 
345 ff., 382, 387; on evangelical 
quotations of Clementines, ii. 6 f., 
18 ff.; on Marcion’s Gospel, 84, 129 ; 
on Athenagoras, 198 note 1; date of 
Trenzeus, 213 note 2; Apocalypse 
and fourth Gospel cannot have been 
written by same author, 391; mis- 
taken reminiscences in fourth Gospel, 
448 notes 3, 4. 

Wisdom of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), ii. 
282, 283. 

Wisdom of Solomon, Brazen Serpent, 
ii. 253 note 3; Logos doctrine in, 
282, 283, 285. 

Witchcraft, universality of belief in, © 
i. 145 ff; belief in it dispelled, 
149 ff. 


XeENoPHANES of Colophon, on Anthro- 
pomorphic Divinity, i. 76 f. 


ZACHARIAS, ii. 201 ff., 475. 

Zeller, ii. 7 note 5, 39 note 2. 

Zoroaster, religion of, claims to have 
been Divine Revelation, i. 2. 


THE END. 


oe 


BRADBURY, AGNEW, & CO,, PRINTERS, WHITEFRIARS. 











Tn 





Panty 
ANAS, 
aN 


ἐνοδογαν οὐφοσεμρ ον 


ΑΝ 


χὰ 
ἀν 

sas ah ines 

ae 

. 


TT 
Δ 





ν 
yee tA 
a 


Ὁ} 

ΕἸ 
νι δὴ 
vi) 
oh 
nae 
See 






































ike 
Hat 
NEN 


Sy Bs 
cs 





ry 





COIS 
TA 
cue 


ee 
ἐν 



































ace bak 
issues 


ΑΝ 


vy BIN 




















sh " 


ae